We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and HP Wolf Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The setup is pretty simple."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"I am really satisfied with the technical support."
"Definitely, the best feature for Cisco Secure Endpoint is the integration with Talos. On the backend, Talos checks all the signatures, all the malware, and for any attacks going on around the world... Because Secure Endpoint has a connection to it, we get protected by it right then and there."
"Device Trajectory is one of the most valuable features. We're able to dig in and really understand how things came to be and where to focus our efforts."
"The console feature gives a centralized management of what's going on, and if something happens, it gives you an alert. So, that's the most important feature for me."
"There are several valuable features including strong prevention and exceptional reporting capabilities."
"Cisco has definitely improved our organization a lot. In terms of business, our company feels safer. We actually switched from legacy signature-based solutions to threat intelligence-based and machine learning-based solutions, which is Cisco Secure. This has improved our security significantly, from 10% of signature-based technology security to 99.9% of the current one which we are running. We were happy."
"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 of the solution is its technical support."
"I use HP Wolf Security to add a layer of safety, especially for laptops operating in various environments."
"Now, instead of us having to go through that analysis, they actually give us a monthly report that shows us: "Here's what you got hit with, here's what would have happened, here are the forensics behind the attack," and, obviously, Bromium stopped it."
"We've been able to isolate and prevent malicious code from external email attachments and from downloaded internet files. Those are the two big areas that have really made an impact."
"Our overall security posture has absolutely improved as a result of adding Bromium to our security stack. We continue to have less user impact through a significantly reduced amount of malware infections. It's become a non-event."
"The most valuable feature is the process isolation because it simply stops malware from infecting the machines."
"The isolation feature is the most important because it prevents attacks."
"The feature that stands out the most is that when someone clicks on a link in an email... [if] that link is malicious and it has some malware or keylogger attached to it, when it opens up in that Bromium virtualized browser, there's no chance of it actually being on the machine and running, because as soon as they click that "X" in the upper right-hand side of the browser, everything just vanishes. That is an added plus."
"It has prevented thousands of potential threats by encapsulating them within its own vSentry container, thus providing overall protection and integrity of the operating system."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"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."
"This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports."
"The GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"We had a lot of noise at the beginning, and we had to turn it down based on exclusions, application whitelisting, and excluding unknown benign applications. Cisco should understand the need for continuous updates on the custom Cisco exclusions and the custom applications that come out-of-the-box with the AMP for Endpoints."
"In the next release, I would for it to have back up abilities. I would like the ability to go back to a point in time to when my PC was uninfected and to the moment of when the infection happened."
"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 more seamless integration."
"The product does not provide options like tunnel creation or virtual appliances."
"In Orbital, there are tons of prebuilt queries, but there is not a lot of information in lay terms. There isn't enough information to help us with what we're looking for and why we are looking for it with this query. There are probably a dozen queries in there that really focus on what I need to focus on, but they are not always easy to find the first time through."
"They need to improve the compatibility with other applications and its stability. It works well with attacks, but it doesn't work well with all software on the clients. There is a lot of troubleshooting and a lot of things that need to be tuned to make it work and not break things."
"When you deploy, not only is the user asked to reboot their computer, they are also asked to wait for 20 minutes while it sits there and initializes. It definitely impacts the end-user. It takes time away from their day."
"Reporting is one of the shortcomings of the product. We do mine the data that's in there from a forensics perspective... It becomes very difficult because you have to spend a lot of time digging through the volumes of data. Reporting is absolutely the biggest shortcoming."
"The tool behaves differently when I ported to Windows 11."
"After a major release, there's always a lot of "dust settling." You have to work through all those issues and then you're fine for a while. The problem is, it's stable, it's fine, until the next major release comes out. Then you go back into the cycle again of uncertainty, instability, working through issues until they have patched and remediated all the problems that you're having. It's not unlike any other vendor though"
"They have always struggled with usability. The protection that it offers you is tremendous, but there's definitely an impact with use of resources on the computer. It's gotten a lot better now with Win 10. But sometimes, when you open up a website, it's going to take longer than it would without Bromium, and it's the same with documents."
"Room for improvement would be keeping up with the rate of change, specifically on Windows platforms. There are a lot of updates that come out for Microsoft Windows operating systems and the Bromium product needs to be able to keep up quickly with those updates and all the browser updates that are coming out. It's hard to do, but that's really where they need to be more responsive because we end up with problems and then we have to call support to get patches, etc."
"I did not find this to be an out-of-the-box solution, it required planning and alignment across many groups."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 43 reviews while HP Wolf Security is ranked 49th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 8 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while HP Wolf Security is rated 7.8. 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 HP Wolf Security writes "Adds a layer of safety, especially for laptops operating in various environments". 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 HP Wolf Security is most compared with Norton Small Business, Bitdefender Total Security, Microsoft Defender for Business, Kaspersky Total Security and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. HP Wolf Security report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.