We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"It is a very stable program."
"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 solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features."
"One of the best features of AMP is its cloud feature. It doesn't matter where the device is in regards to whether it's inside or outside of your network environment, especially right now when everybody's remote and taken their laptops home. You don't have to be VPNed into the environment for AMP to work. AMP will work anywhere in the world, as long as it has an Internet connection. You get protection and reporting with it. No matter where the device is, AMP has still got coverage on it and is protecting it. You still have the ability to manage and remediate things. The cloud feature is the magic bullet. This is what makes the solution a valuable tool as far as I'm concerned."
"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."
"The threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great."
"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 behavior-based detection feature is valuable."
"The solution doesn't need a high level of technical training."
"Its interface and pricing are most valuable. It is better than other vendors in terms of security."
"They did what they said. This solution could apply to any scenario."
"The ability to kind of stitch everything together and see the actual complete picture is very useful. I guess you'd call it a playbook. Some people call it the forensics analysis of what was happening on particular endpoints when they detected some malicious behavior, and what transpired before that to cause that. It is also very user friendly. The way they have done everything and integrated all the solutions that they've purchased over the years to make it a very seamless, effective product is very good. One thing about Palo Alto is that they take the products or services that they purchase and make them seamless for the end user as compared to some companies that purchase other companies and then just kind of have their products off to the side or keep different interfaces. Palo Alto doesn't do that."
"Its ability to react to cyber data attacks is awesome. That is pretty much the use of it. What blows your mind is the ability to access your assets remotely and see what is actually going on with them. You can not only see them in a console. You can also react very rapidly to your assets that are compromised."
"It is easy to use."
"It's a nice product that's stable and scalable."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"It is easy to use, flexible, and stable. Because it is a cloud-based solution and it integrates all endpoints of the cloud, we can do an IOC-based search. It can search the entire enterprise and tell us the endpoints that are possibly compromised."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"It has a feature called Isolation. If a device is compromised, we can connect it to our SOC, and no one would be able to access it. This way we can limit the damage to the network while we are investigating."
"The exploit guard and malware protection features are very useful. The logon tracker feature is also very useful. They have also given new modules such as logout backup, process backup. We ordered these modules from the FireEye market place, and we have installed these modules. We are currently exploring these features."
"FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front."
"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."
"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."
"The GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"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 greatest value of all, would be to make the security into a single pane of glass. Whilst these products are largely integrated from a Talos perspective, they're not integrated from a portal perspective. For example, we have to look at an Umbrella portal and a separate AMP portal. We also have to look at a separate portal for the firewalls. If I could wave a magic wand and have one thing, I would put all the Cisco products into one, simple management portal."
"The connector updates are very easily done now, and that's improving. Previously, the connector had an issue, where almost every time it needed to be updated, it required a machine reboot. This was always a bit of an inconvenience and a bug. Because with a lot of software now, you don't need to do that and shouldn't need to be rebooting all the time."
"The technical support is very slow."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"Although I would say this product is highly-rated, it could probably do more because nothing does everything that you want."
"Cortex does not offer an on-premises solution. However, some customers would prefer not to be on the cloud. It would be ideal if it could offer something on-prem as well."
"The solution could improve by providing better integration with their own products and others."
"It should support more mobile operating systems. That is one of the cons of their infrastructure right now."
"There are a large number of false positives."
"There are some third-party solutions that are difficult to integrate with, which is something that can be improved."
"In an upcoming release, the solution could improve by proving hard disk encryption. If it could support this it would be a complete solution."
"Being able to filter the events to see those that are related to the actual alert would save time spent by the engineer."
"Most of these types of solutions including others, such as Carbon Black and FortiEDR, all have the same features. However, Carbon Black is the leader when it comes to being robust and user-friendly and this solution should improve in those areas to stay more competitive."
"The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux. We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
"Malware detection can be better. It doesn't have support and detection for the recent malware, but it has a compensatory control where it can do the behavior-based assessment and alert you when there is something malicious or unexpected. For example, when a certain user is executing the privilege command, which is not normal. These dynamic detections are good, and they compensate for malware detection."
"They have something called Managed Detection and Response. They get intel from their customers, and that intel is shared with the rest of FireEye's customers. I want to subscribe to their intel, but that is not available to us."
"It has very good integrations. However, its integration with Palo Alto was not good, and they seem to be working on it at the backend. It is not very resource-hungry, but it can be even better in terms of resource utilization. It could be improved in terms of efficiency, memory sizing, and disk consumption by agents."
"The reports need more development. They need more details on the reports and more details taking the executive view into consideration."
"We have a license for 3,000 users and if we get up to 3,100 users, it doesn't stop working, but on the next renewal date you're supposed to go in there and add that extra 100 licenses. It's really good that they let you grow and expand and then pay for it. Sometimes, with other products, you overuse a license and they just don't work."
"There are a couple of different consumption models: Pay up front, or if you have an enterprise agreement, you can do a monthly thing. Check your licensing possibilities and see what's best for your organization."
"The Enterprise Agreement is like an all-you-can-eat buffet of Cisco products. In that vein, it was very affordable."
"Licensing fees are on a yearly basis and I am happy with the pricing."
"There is also the Cisco annual subscription plus my management time in terms of what I do with the Cisco product. I spend a minimal amount of time on it though, just rolling out updates as they need them and monitoring the console a couple of times a day to ensure nothing is out of control. Cost-wise, we are quite happy with it."
"The pricing and licensing are reasonable. The cost of AMP for Endpoints is inline with all the other software that has a monthly endpoint cost. It might be a little bit higher than other antivirus type products, but we're only talking about a dollar a month per user. I don't see that cost as being an issue if it's going to give us the confidence and security that we're looking for. We have had a lot of success and happiness with what we're using, so there's no point in changing."
"Our company was very happy with the price of Cisco AMP. It was about a third of what we were paying for System Center Endpoint Protection."
"We can know if something bad is potentially happening instantaneously and prevent it from happening. We can go to a device and isolate it before it infects other devices. In our environment, that's millions of dollars saved in a matter of seconds."
"Very costly product."
"The pricing is okay, although direct support can be expensive."
"It has a yearly renewal."
"Our customers have expressed that the price is high."
"If one wishes to work with another team or large number of users at a future point, he must purchase a license for them."
"This is an expensive solution."
"The pricing is a little high. It is per user per year."
"Its pricing is kind of in line with its competitors and everybody else out there."
Advanced Malware Protection (AMP) is subscription-based, managed through a web-based management console, and deployed on a variety of platforms that protects endpoints, network, email and web Traffic. AMP key features include the following: Global threat intelligence to proactively defend against known and emerging threats, Advanced sandboxing that performs automated static and dynamic analysis of files against more than 700 behavioral indicators, Point-in-time malware detection and blocking in real time and Continuous analysis and retrospective security regardless of the file's disposition and Continuous analysis and retrospective security.
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is the world's first detection and response app that natively integrates network, endpoint and cloud data to stop sophisticated attacks. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks accurately detects threats with behavioral analytics and reveals the root cause to speed up investigations.
FireEye Endpoint Security is an integrated endpoint solution that detects, prevents and responds effectively to known malware and threats traditional anti-virus endpoint security products miss. It expands endpoint visibility and provides contextual frontline intelligence to help analysts automate protection, quickly determine the exact scope and level of any attack activity and adapt defenses as needed.
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 6th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 29 reviews while FireEye Endpoint Security is ranked 9th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 5 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.2, while FireEye Endpoint Security is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "Has a centralized console and does predictive analysis of malware". On the other hand, the top reviewer of FireEye Endpoint Security writes "Enables us to do IOC-based search across the enterprise and isolate compromised devices". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne, Symantec End-User Endpoint Security and Check Point Harmony Endpoint, whereas FireEye Endpoint Security is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Tanium and Carbon Black CB Defense. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. FireEye Endpoint Security report.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection for Business (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.