We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"It is a very stable program."
"The threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great."
"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."
"The entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"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."
"It doesn't impact the devices. It is an agent-based solution, and we see no performance knock on cell phones. That was a big thing for us, especially in the mobile world. We don't see battery degradation like you do with other solutions which really drain the battery, as they're constantly doing things. That can shorten the useful life of a device."
"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."
"The solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features."
"Two or three years ago when the WannaCry virus struck, the people that were on Cylance were the ones that weren't affected."
"It does a good job of protecting us."
"It provides good insight into the programs, applications, or websites that may need attention."
"The Application Guard and ByteGuard are useful features."
"The solution is very quick at easily changing the levels of protection for each computer and the server."
"It secures different entry points into the network."
"We are quite security-focused. Blackberry Protect as an endpoint solution for our service really delivers what we are expecting."
"The most functional item that we use is the process to turn off the false flags that it causes."
"It collects and caches and the knowledge of machine learning from different customers to take to the cloud. It makes it better to use for everybody. It allows for quick learning and updates and can, therefore, offer zero-day malware security. This sharing of metadata helps make the solution very safe."
"It's a nice product that's stable and scalable."
"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."
"The initial setup is pretty easy."
"The user interface of the solution is sophisticated and straightforward."
"The dashboard is customizable."
"They have a new GUI which is just fantastic."
"The interface is easy to use and it is more up to date than our previous solution."
"The room for improvement would be on event notifications. I have mine tuned fairly well. I do feel that if you subscribe to all the event notification types out-of-the-box, or don't really go through and take the time to filter out events, the notifications can become overwhelming with information. Sometimes, when you're overwhelmed with information, you just say, "I'm not going to look at anything because I'm receiving so much." I recommend the vendor come up with a white paper on the best practices for event notifications."
"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."
"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 technical support is very slow."
"...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."
"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."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"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."
"I would like to see them fix the alerting system so that the endpoint reporting is a bit more streamlined."
"Having worked with SentinelOne, Cylance is good, however, it probably needs to add a feature similar to SentinelOne's rollback functionality. With this feature, if you get infected, with a click, you can go back to the pre-infection state. If Cylance could add this functionality to their offering as well, that would be ideal."
"It should have better support for Windows and Mac."
"The product needs to continue to offer better alerts. In particular, around false positives. It needs to reduce them from happening."
"It's a good solution but some features just need to be updated."
"The OPTICS component could be made more user-friendly with respect to giving people more information."
"I would say one thing that they might need to bring in is protection for mobile devices."
"The process of whitelisting a script that you want to be able to run can be a little bit difficult, or awkward."
"Although I would say this product is highly-rated, it could probably do more because nothing does everything that you want."
"The solution should offer more dashboards and they should be better customized."
"We have found that there are times Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks does not detect some of the viruses, we have to use another protection solution called Kaspersky."
"Technology evolves every day, so it would be nice if it gets more secure. It can also have more integration with other platforms."
"The dashboard could use some significant improvement, just making it more useful with more information. It has a limited amount of information right now. It is customizable, but I'd love to see a better out-of-box dashboard."
"I would like to see better protection, specifically to protect email applications."
"I would like to see them include NDR (Network Detection Response)."
"There's an overall lack of features."
"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."
"In our case, it is a straightforward annual payment through our Enterprise Agreement."
"The Enterprise Agreement is like an all-you-can-eat buffet of Cisco products. In that vein, it was very affordable."
"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."
"Whenever you are doing the licensing process, I would highly advise to look at what other Cisco solutions you have in your organization, then evaluate if an Enterprise Agreement is the best way to go. In our case, it was the best way to go. Since we had so many other Cisco products, we were able to tie those in. We were actually able to get several Cisco security solutions for less than if we had bought three or four Cisco security solutions independently or ad hoc."
"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 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."
"This cost of the license is approximately $5 USD monthly per user."
"We pay our license on a yearly basis and have just renewed for two years."
"The monthly fee is $55 USD per user."
"It's not so heavily priced; rather, it's average and decent."
"I think that the price we are paying is good for what it is."
"The product cost is about $5, per user, per month."
"The pricing is okay, although direct support can be expensive."
"The pricing is a little high. It is per user per year."
"The price is on the higher side, but it's okay."
"In terms of the cost Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is very expensive because we are a Mexican company and when you translate dollars to pesos the cost is very high. The solution is very expensive for Mexican companies. I understand that they have international prices, but I do not think it offsets the price enough for many companies in countries, such as Mexico. The amount it is reduced is not a massive percentage."
"It has a yearly renewal."
"If one wishes to work with another team or large number of users at a future point, he must purchase a license for them."
"Every customer has to pay for a license because it doesn't work with what you get from a managed services provider."
"We pay about $50,000 USD per year for a bundle that includes Cortex XDR."
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.
BlackBerry® Protect is an artificial intelligence (AI) based endpoint protection platform (EPP) that prevents breaches and provides added controls for safeguarding against sophisticated cyberthreats—no human intervention, Internet connections, signature files, heuristics or sandboxes required.
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.
Blackberry Protect is ranked 16th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 17 reviews while Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 6th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 30 reviews. Blackberry Protect is rated 8.0, while Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Blackberry Protect writes "An outstanding product that is pretty spot on and easy to deploy and use". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "Has a centralized console and does predictive analysis of malware". Blackberry Protect is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne, Carbon Black CB Defense and Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response, whereas 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. See our Blackberry Protect vs. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks 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.