We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Among the most valuable features are the exclusions. And on the scalability side, we can integrate well with the SIEM orchestration engine and a number of applications that are proprietary or open source."
"The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"The solution makes it possible to see a threat once and block it everywhere across all endpoints and the entire security platform. It has the ability to block right down to the file and application level across all devices based on policies, such as, blacklisting and whitelisting of software and applications. This is good. Its strength is the ability to identify threats very quickly, then lock them and the network down and block the threats across the organization and all devices, which is what you want. You don't want to be spending time working out how to block something. You want to block something very quickly, letting that flow through to all the devices and avoiding the same scenario on different operating systems."
"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 entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"It's excellent at detecting viruses."
"We found the installation to be very straightforward and the deployment process to be very fast."
"The initial setup was extremely straightforward and very easy."
"I like that we can use it across all the platforms like PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, and all systems for protection. I also like that we can use it for different cloud sessions and different unified systems. It's available on all the vulnerability assessments including, web filtering, email filtering, test protection, anomaly control, and management. There are more than enough benefits available on Kaspersky."
"The reporting feature is good. Also, the device control is good."
"The solution is user-friendly and the dashboard is good."
"The solution is scalable, we have 500 users using this solution."
"The malware threat detection has been excellent overall."
"The most valuable feature is the web filter application control."
"The protection from malware is the most important feature. It has some endpoint information about the vehicle of the virus, malware, etc. It is also stable and easy to install, and they also provide good technical support."
"It prevents our users from circumventing security. Everything is password protected so they can't get into it. They can't uninstall it. They can't do anything."
"The patch management module is very important."
"The product so far has been good at protecting us. We haven't faced a breach."
"It's very easy to deploy, we don't have any problem or issues. It's most full automatic. It basically takes the assumption that everything is supposed to be a suspect; files, processes, URL accesses, and so on."
"Their remote management (RMM) is very good."
"Panda Security solution has a feature to block any unknown process and that is what is best about it."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We don't have issues. We think that Cisco covers all of the security aspects on the market. They continue to innovate in the right way."
"...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 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."
"It would be nice if it was less expensive."
"The reporting portion of the solution is quite weak."
"It would be ideal with the solution offered more documentation."
"I would like to see the inclusion of support for device management and device control."
"It should be more secure and detect new malware as it's released."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The stability could be better."
"The cloud needs to be more robust. We have 1,500 users and Kaspersky has issues handling them. It's a problem."
"It needs some improvements in the DNS security feature. Currently, it does not have full DNS security. It only has semi-DNS security, which can be improved. It is an important feature for us, and it would be really good if they can improve the DNS security feature. Our group has some plans to change to Cisco AMP, which has features such as DNS, Umbrella. We are trying to learn about Cisco AMP and compare it with Panda."
"The gap between the two final conclusions is a problem, whether or not a file is known to be malware or is known to be safe."
"They need to expand their offering of add-ons to enhance capabilities further."
"Improvements could be made in terms of how the reporting is structured."
"Occasionally, we suffer from little bugs that give us the wrong message."
"The only part I really don't use as much is their firewall. It's a bit superfluous. Most people have their own firewall in place, so they don't really need that part portion of the solution."
"It needs improvements in its EDR and its ability to manage all the nodes. I'd like better communication between the console and the nodes, so I don't have to remote into each individual machine that's having an issue with the protection."
"The Linux installation is performed on the command line and they need a package installer for that operating system."
"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."
"Licensing fees are on a yearly basis and I am happy with the pricing."
"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."
"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."
"The Enterprise Agreement is like an all-you-can-eat buffet of Cisco products. In that vein, it was very affordable."
"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."
"The visibility that we have into the endpoint and the forensics that we're able to collect give us value for the price. This is not an overly expensive solution, considering all the things that are provided. You get great performance and value for the cost."
"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."
"We pay a yearly annual subscription for this product."
"We have an annual license and there is a fee per device used. The price is fair compared to the latest EDR solution."
"There is a license required for this solution and we have 1,800 licenses. The cost is a bit high and we are looking for an alternative."
"I think the price of this solution is good."
"Its price is on par with other products. It might even be slightly cheaper. There are no additional costs."
"The solution requires a license and there are different license packages depending on the number of users you need."
"There is an annual license required to use Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business."
"The licensing cost can be about $1,300 per year."
"The licensing is subscription-based and priced well compared to other endpoint security solutions."
"The price of this solution depends on the number of licenses that you are purchasing."
"The licensing costs are not too high. We pay about 20 Euros a year. It's a reasonable amount to pay."
"Panda is cloud-only and comes at a reasonable cost. It is a set price per seat."
"I don't think Panda's license is too expensive, but they're charging more than it's worth. It's a yearly license. For 1,000 endpoints, it's around $18,000."
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.
Adaptive Defense 360 is a cyber-security service that combines next-generation protection (NG EPP) and detection and remediation technologies (EDR), with the ability to classify 100% of running processes.
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 13th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 55 reviews while Panda Security Adaptive Defense is ranked 24th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 8 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0, while Panda Security Adaptive Defense is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "A mature product offering good protection and very good features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Panda Security Adaptive Defense writes "Managing multiple machines is a pain, but support is top notch". Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Sophos Intercept X, SentinelOne and Blackberry Protect, whereas Panda Security Adaptive Defense is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Security, Sophos Intercept X, CrowdStrike Falcon and Trend Micro Apex One. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business vs. Panda Security Adaptive Defense report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) vendors.
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.