We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Any alert that we get is an actionable alert. Immediately, there is information that we can just click through, see the point in time, what happened, what caused it, and what automatic actions were taken. We can then choose to take any manual actions, if we want, or start our investigation. We're no longer looking at digging into information or wading through hundreds of incidents. There's a list which says where the status is assigned, e.g., under investigation or investigation finished. That is all in the console. It has taken away a lot of the administration, which we would normally be doing, and integrated it into the console for us."
"The entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"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."
"The visibility and insight this solution gives you into threats is pretty granular. It has constant monitoring. You can get onto the device trajectory to look at a threat, but you can also see what happened prior to the threat. You can see what happened after the threat. You can see what other applications were incorporated into the execution of the threat. For example, you have the event, but you see that the event was launched by Google Chrome, which was launched by something else. Then, after the event, something else was launched by whatever the threat was. Therefore, it gives you great detail, a timeline, and continuity of events leading up to whatever the incident is, and then, after. This helps you understand and nail down what the threat is and how to fix it."
"The solution is extremely scalable. It's got the hybrid functionality, it's got the system functionality and cloud functionality as well."
"I find the actual overall endpoint malware protection the most valuable feature of CylancePROTECT."
"You can manage all the threats and everything from a centralized dashboard."
"I like the AI and mathematical components that they use."
"The most functional item that we use is the process to turn off the false flags that it causes."
"A user can continue to add endpoints and the solution will continue to perform well."
"It secures different entry points into the network."
"It provides good insight into the programs, applications, or websites that may need attention."
"Our clients are using the advanced options, and they're quite comfortable with this solution because they didn't have any problems. It was easy to integrate it with Active Directory. It is fast and easy to use. It has all the required features."
"The most valuable feature is the management center."
"I like that Kaspersky isn't heavy."
"Ability to specify the level of protection on devices,"
"It's excellent at detecting viruses."
"Using dashboards, it is very easy to manage."
"We found the installation to be very straightforward and the deployment process to be very fast."
"The solution is very easy to use. It's an extremely user-friendly product."
"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."
"The thing I hate the most, which they have not fixed, is when it creates duplicate entries within a console. If you have a computer and you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, or you upgrade your agent from version 6 to 7, it creates a new instance in there instead of updating the information. Instead of paying a license for one computer, I have to license two computers until I manually go in, search for all the duplicate entries, and clean them out myself."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"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 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."
"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."
"While you are working, you are finding these things that were supposed to be waived have come back to being blocked. That's frustrating."
"The company that sells us the licenses sometimes doesn't know how to do certain things."
"I would say one thing that they might need to bring in is protection for mobile devices."
"The initial deployment was quite complicated."
"We would like to see secure integration and multi-factor authentication to be able to access the administration dashboard."
"They could improve on the false positives, reporting and whitelisting features."
"I'd like them to do software distribution too, but they said that that's architecturally not at the product line."
"The product needs to continue to offer better alerts. In particular, around false positives. It needs to reduce them from happening."
"This solution used a lot of memory and GPU; it would be nice if this could be reduced."
"The solution sometimes slows down the computers of our clients, the performance needs to improve."
"There are many improvements needed, such as faster responses, faster notification, and immediate reports."
"The performance level could be better."
"The solution could be more secure. It's an aspect the company needs to be mindful of."
"It's very heavy and it affects the computer's performance."
"It would be nice if it was less expensive."
"The reporting portion of the solution is quite weak."
"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 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."
"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."
"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."
"In our case, it is a straightforward annual payment through our Enterprise Agreement."
"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."
"It's not so heavily priced; rather, it's average and decent."
"The product cost is about $5, per user, per month."
"The monthly fee is $55 USD per user."
"I think that the price we are paying is good for what it is."
"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."
"I prefer paying for a yearly license because it has some discounts. One of the companies I work for pays for the Business Select license, for 100 users."
"The licensing cost can be about $1,300 per year."
"We pay a yearly annual subscription for this product."
"It's an affordable security solution."
"The price of the solution is reasonable. It is less costly compared to competitors."
"We have a yearly license, and the pricing is fine."
"I find the solution to be inexpensive compared to other solution like Crowdstrike."
"We have an annual license and there is a fee per device used. The price is fair compared to the latest EDR solution."
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.
Blackberry Protect is ranked 16th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 17 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 13th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 55 reviews. Blackberry Protect is rated 8.0, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0. 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 Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "A mature product offering good protection and very good features". Blackberry Protect is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne, Carbon Black CB Defense and Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Sophos Intercept X, SentinelOne and Trend Micro Apex One. See our Blackberry Protect vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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.