We performed a comparison between Cynet and Cisco Secure Endpoint based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. Cisco Secure Endpoint stands out for its threat-hunting capabilities, sandboxing, and swift response to attacks. Users also praised the solution's seamless integration with Talos for continuous protection. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools. Cisco Secure Endpoint could benefit from providing more scenario-based information and a simpler, more customizable main dashboard. Integration with artificial intelligence and IoT is another area for improvement.
Service and Support: Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. They have a dedicated support team that is available round the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents. Users said Cisco support is efficient and responsive, and customers also found it easy to find answers in the documentation without help. Some users recommend enhancing training programs and streamlining management consoles to further enhance the level of support provided.
Ease of Deployment: Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly. Users generally found Cisco Secure Endpoint easy to set up, but some users reported challenges related to agent behavior and configuration. The initial installation involves downloading an agent and installing it on endpoints, and the total deployment time ranged from a week to several months.
Pricing: Customers generally think Cynet is affordable and a good value for its features. Cisco Secure Endpoint's pricing is seen as fair and reasonable. Some users requested additional discounts, particularly for educational purposes.
ROI: Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data. Cisco Secure Endpoint offers cost savings and the potential to earn money by extending services.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Cynet over Cisco Secure Endpoint. Cynet offers a tailored experience, regular automatic updates, and a user-friendly dashboard equipped with advanced protection capabilities. Users say Cynet is a comprehensive and cost-effective solution that's priced well for its range of functionalities.
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"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."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its technical support."
"The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that there is a lot more malware slipping through my email filters than I expected."
"The most valuable feature at this moment is that Cisco AMP or Cisco Secure Endpoint solution is delivering a lot of things, and I always say to a lot of customers that if we didn't have Cisco AMP, we probably would have had ransomware somewhere. So, it's protecting us very well from a lot of hackers, malware, and especially ransomware."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the IPS and the integration with ISE."
"The stability of the solution is perfect. I believe it's the most stable solution on the market right now."
"It is extensive in terms of providing visibility and insights into threats. It allows for research into a threat, and you can chart your progress on how you're resolving it."
"It's quite simple, and the advantage I see is that I get the trajectory of what happened inside the network, how a file has been transmitted to the workstation, and which files have got corrupted."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the network part of it because most of the endpoint products in XDS products we find Cynet has networking user behavior analysis and network analysis, for the whole team."
"This solution requires less management and is very easy to use."
"A good feature is how the solution packages varied information into a single dashboard that's readable and meets our needs."
"The dashboard is beautiful, overall easy of use, and the UBA and NBA features are valued."
"It's transparent, so it's not something where every user has to press a button to download or do the thing. It is centralized, in fact. Personally, I use Malwarebytes and other tools, which are fine for home use. Cynet is also relatively silent in terms of operation, except when it's required to act."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is that it is a complete solution, which makes cyber security very free and almost perfect. There is no such thing as perfect cyber security, but as far as it can go, sign it comes close to being perfect and holistic. Cynet is always comprehensive from the perspective of functionality, as well as from the standpoint that it encompasses not only technology but also processes and people. The triad of people, processes, and technology is crucial and should always be in place. To my knowledge, no other product or platform combines all three components into one, but Cynet does."
"In terms of incident response, Cynet can contain attacks, offer a trial period to customers, and uninstall if not continued. The most valuable aspect is its integration capabilities, covering endpoints and network data for a comprehensive view of threats."
"Its ability to revert back from a previous state is quite notable. This feature is particularly valuable because, for maintaining integrity, it can inspect the socket for any firewall modifications. In practice, it allows us to return to a previous configuration when everything was functioning correctly."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"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."
"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."
"The support needs improvement."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"The integration of the Cisco products for security could be better in the sense that not everything is integrated, and they aren't working together. In addition, not all products are multi-tenant, so you can't separate different customer environments from each other, which makes it a little bit hard for a managed service provider to deliver services to the customers."
"Logging could be better in terms of sending more logs to Cisco Firepower or Cisco ASA. That's an area where it could be made better."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"It does not include encryption and decryption of local file shares."
"The reporting and analytics areas of the solution need to be improved."
"The product does not provide options like tunnel creation or virtual appliances."
"The one challenge that I see is the use of multiple endpoint protection platforms. For instance, we have AMP, but we also have Microsoft Windows Defender, System Center Endpoint Protection, and Microsoft Malware Protection Engine deployed. So, we have a bunch of different things that do the same thing. What winds up happening is, e.g., if I get an alert for a potential incident or malware and want to pull the file, I'll go to fetch the file to analyze it. But, one of these other programs has already gotten it, so the file has already been quarantined by another endpoint protection system. AMP doesn't realize that and the file fetch fails, then you're left wondering what's going on."
"I would like to see support for mobile protection and some additional reports included."
"Sometimes, it is necessary for me to make important changes to a hard drive of a computer, and because Cynet does not allow me to do that, I have to go to the console and remove the computer from the security group just for Cynet. After that, I have to wait for 10 or 15 minutes for that to take effect. I would like to be able to disable Cynet locally. I shouldn’t have to go to the console to find the PC and then take it out of the group and then add it again to the group. I should locally be able to disable Cynet on a computer with a password or something like that, but it is currently not possible."
"The solution lacks URL filtering."
"The solution just needs to keep maturing and they need to keep up with the threat landscape to ensure they're protecting clients well as time passes."
"They have some things in the pipeline, we understand, and they're going to be able to support Android and all these other devices soon. The key is the devices - which is an aspect that is lacking right now. Every company has that problem, not just Cynet."
"SIEM - Although with their Centralised Log Management Cynet has created the basis for SIEM functionality, this is to be expanded in the near future."
"We'd like something that makes it easier to manage specific points."
"One thing to note is that I highly recommend adding a deep learning-based prevention environment as an additional layer to Cynet. However, I always advise my customers to start with Cynet or XDR, for example, and then focus on the people, technology, and processes involved. This is the best approach to ensure that you are not breached with ransomware. While Cynet can prevent most attacks, there have been cases where ransomware has been quicker than Cynet's detection capabilities. In these situations, an additional tool is necessary to ensure complete protection, and that is what I sell as well."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 43 reviews while Cynet is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 35 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Cynet is rated 8.8. 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 Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". 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 Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Cynet report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors, best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors, and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.