We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Symantec Endpoint 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."The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The stability of the solution is perfect. I believe it's the most stable solution on the market right now."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the IPS and the integration with ISE."
"It used to take us a month to find out that something is infected, we now know that same day, as soon it is infected."
"The VPN is most valuable. It's the best thing in the market today. We can use two-factor authentication with another platform, and we can authenticate with two-factor."
"Secure Endpoint has decreased our time to remediate by providing the tools and the integrations we need so we can quickly look across our entire network, look for those threats, and actually make good decisions."
"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."
"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."
"If somebody has been compromised, the question always is: How has it affected other devices in the network? Cisco AMP gives you a very neat view of that."
"A great feature of this solution is that it is very well-integrated with antivirus software. Other ADR solutions are implemented as single technologies and are not integrated with the provider, but Symantec offers AV plus ADR."
"It is mostly used for malware detection and antivirus purposes."
"The setup is quite easy."
"The solution does all that we expect it to do."
"I've mainly found the antivirus and antispyware features valuable. The documentation is okay as well."
"The solution can scale well."
"In Symantec, we have found that the most important feature is Application and Device Control."
"The interface is quite easy to use."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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"
"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."
"Detections could be improved."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The support needs improvement."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The initial setup is a bit complex because you need to execute existing antiviruses or security software that you have on your device."
"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."
"Cisco is good in terms of threat intelligence plus machine learning-based solutions, but we feel Cisco is lagging behind in using artificial intelligence in its systems."
"It's pretty good as it is, but its cost could be improved."
"The solution can always be more stable and more secure."
"While they are quite dynamic, they need to ensure they are detecting threats faster in the future to keep people safer."
"The Symantec portfolio is not big enough to cover the organization in all 360 degrees."
"It should be easier to deploy Symantec's client for end-users."
"Its UI could be more user-friendly."
"Reporting is a major issue, as it is not user friendly."
"They need to improve their cloud presence."
"In the future, it would be nice to have playbooks in the tool, to allow for some of the common activities to be automated. For example, some of the scannings of the malware can be too manual for a specific device. Additionally, a vulnerability manager would be beneficial."
More Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 43 reviews while Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is ranked 25th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 28 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is rated 7.6. 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 Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response writes "A highly stable and affordable solution for detecting and preventing security threats". 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 Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trend Vision One, Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert and Bitdefender GravityZone EDR. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Symantec Endpoint 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.
