We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager 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."Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its technical support."
"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."
"I am told that we get over 100 million emails a month. This filters them down and allows only somewhere about three million emails, which is a great help."
"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 no issues or drops in the solution's performance...The solution's technical support was helpful."
"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."
"Another of my favorite features is called the Device Trajectory, where it shows everything that's going on, on a computer. It shows the point in time when a virus is downloaded, so you can see if the user was surfing the internet or had a program open. It shows every running process and file access on the computer and saves it like a snapshot when it detects something malicious. It also has a File Trajectory, so you can even see if that file has been found on any of your other computers that have AMP."
"The integration with other Cisco products seemed to be really effective. We had Umbrella in place and we were using AnyConnect as well as Firepower. Once a threat was detected, being able to do the threat lookups and the live tracking was really useful."
"Patching and remediation are the strongest features."
"The best part about Ivanti and Matrix 42 is that they are low-code solution builders with drag-and-drop capabilities regarding service management."
"The most valuable feature of Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager, which my company mainly uses, is patching. Another valuable feature of Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is that it allows you to view the inventory list of the different machines."
"The most valuable features of the solution are accessing the data through the mobiles and meeting with the compliance for security best practices."
"It provides security features for unified endpoint management."
"The solution's most valuable features are its patch management functionality and provisioning."
"The key differentiator is that it manages mobile devices and laptops in the same console. Windows and Linux are on the same console. This is the only product that does this. It's really the best in the industry."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"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."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"Detections could be improved."
"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."
"It is not very stable because we have new versions four times a year, which fixes bugs. We had some problems with some deployments."
"Due to the complexity of the technology that is used and its advanced threat detection capabilities, it is possible to encounter many delays in operation."
"We have had some problems with updates not playing nice with our environment. This is important, because if there is a new version, we need to test it thoroughly before it goes into production. We cannot just say, "There's a new version. It's not going to give us any problems." With the complexity of the solution using multiple engines for multiple tasks, it can sometimes cause performance issues on our endpoints. Therefore, we need to test it before we deploy. That takes one to three days before we can be certain that the new version plays nice with our environment."
"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 integration with Cisco Analytics."
"Integration and dashboard are areas with certain shortcomings in Cisco Secure Endpoint."
"In the next version of this solution, I would like to see the addition of local authentication."
"Maybe there is room for improvement in some of the automated remediation. We have other tools in place that AMP feeds into that allow for that to happen, so I look at it as one seamless solution. But if you're buying AMP all by itself, I don't know if it can remove malicious software after the fact or if it requires the other tools that we use to do some of that."
"If I want to integrate the solution with any other solution, pushing the policies from the Ivanti side is a bit tough."
"An area for improvement in Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is reporting. It's lacking. For example, Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager reports should tell you if the agent is up to date, if the security patch is updated, etc."
"When you open a new mobile, you automatically come onboard the mobile on the Ivanti platform but it needs some improvements."
"The solution needs a complete overhaul or makeover. It gets stuck sometimes because they're focusing on the cloud UEM stuff rather than paying as much attention to that particular piece. The ease of use could be improved. It combines many different functionalities that you would need multiple servers like SCCM. If I wanted to train people, I’d move to a higher level from an Apache architect. There are five or six different products. So, training functional staff to use the product can be challenging because it can sometimes be cumbersome. Reporting is challenging. We use Avanti extraction to report off an endpoint. We don't use the reporting because of the need for more functionality, granularity, or customization."
"The product's blocking definition needs improvement."
"One of the features that Ivanti could improve is patching for non-Windows settings, such as Linux and Ubuntu."
"Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager's support provided to its users by the vendor is one area that needs to improve."
More Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 43 reviews while Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is ranked 45th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 7 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is rated 8.6. 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 Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager writes "A security solution to manage devices with patching and remediation feature". 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 Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager is most compared with BigFix, Tanium, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security and Check Point Harmony Endpoint. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.