We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"It is stable and scalable."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"Its most valuable features are its scalability and advanced threat protection for customers."
"appreciate the File Trajectory feature, as it's excellent for an analyst or mobile analyst. I can track everything that happens on our server from my PC or device. Integration with SecureX is a welcome feature because it connects Cisco's integrated security portfolio with our complete infrastructure. Sandboxing is helpful, and integration with the Cisco environment is excellent as we use many of their products, and that's very valuable for us."
"Real-time threat prevention using sandboxing, file trajectory, and retrospective security."
"The product itself is pretty reliable. The security features that it has make it reliable."
"The ability to detonate a particular problem in a sandbox environment and understand what the effects are, is helpful. We're trying, for example, to determine, when people send information in, if an attachment is legitimate or not. You just have to open it. If you can do that in a secure sandbox environment, that's an invaluable feature. What you would do otherwise would be very risky and tedious."
"The most valuable feature is its threat protection and data privacy, including its cyber attack and data protection, as we need to cover and protect data on user devices."
"I am really satisfied with the technical support."
"The product provides sandboxing options like file reputation and file analysis."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"When you download the executable file from the internet, it automatically sandboxes to make sure it's not doing anything incorrectly."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation of logs from different devices."
"WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is a reliable solution."
"The interface is very good."
"The tool provides automated responses."
"The protection that it provides from ransomware is valuable. The awareness that it has is also valuable. It didn't have a central console earlier, but now it has a central console, which is pretty good."
"I like WatchGuard's network segmentation features. It's easy to configure user policies."
"Detections could be improved."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports."
"On the firewall level, they were lagging a little bit behind, but they are running up again. I have full trust in the new 3000 series of firewalls where we would also be able to look more into the traffic that we're monitoring and get more security layers in our services. That would definitely be a big step."
"In terms of the user experience, if the UX design could be much simpler [that would improve things]... if they could make it more intuitive for someone who is not an engineer so that they still can read what's going on in their webpage and understand, that would be something."
"It does not include encryption and decryption of local file shares."
"I would like them to add whatever makes filtering more advanced in scanning and blocking for malware in emails."
"It's pretty good as it is, but its cost could be improved."
"The solution needs more in-depth analytics."
"The Linux agent is a simple offline classic agent, and it doesn't support Secure Boot, which is important to have on a Linux machine. The Linux agent has conflicts with other solutions, including the Exploit Prevention system found in Windows servers. We didn't find a fix during troubleshooting, and Cisco couldn't offer one either. Eventually, we had to shut down the Exploit Prevention system. We didn't like that as we always want a solution that can fit smoothly into the setup without causing problems, especially where security is concerned. The tool also caused CPU spikes on our production machine, and we were seriously considering moving to another product."
"This product needs to be fully integrated with the firewall. Currently, it only sends logs to the cloud and asks the firewall to correlate them."
"The reporting isn't so good. If they worked to improve this aspect of the solution, it would be much stronger."
"When it comes to live-monitoring, the user-interface could be improved to make things easier."
"WatchGuard should offer more visibility into user activity. For example, we should have more details when WatchGuard denies a user access to a port."
"It can have a couple of false positives, but after you add them to your allow list, it works fine. It could have better Mac support. I am pretty sure it doesn't have much support for Mac. It can be installed on a Mac, but it is not that good."
"The solution is a bit confusing and there are unusual complications with setup."
"The administrative UI/UX could be significantly improved."
"The interface is not the best."
More WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 43 reviews while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is ranked 27th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 12 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Single dashboard management, quick infrastructure threat detection, and high level support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response writes "Offers deployment simplicity, especially for firewalls and firewall configuration and good documentation available ". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and Cisco Umbrella, whereas WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Darktrace, Bitdefender GravityZone EDR and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.