We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Compare Blackberry Protect vs. McAfee Endpoint Security

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Featured Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Blackberry Protect vs. McAfee Endpoint Security and other solutions. Updated: November 2021.
554,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"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.""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.""Integration is a key selling factor for Cisco security products. We have a Cisco Enterprise Agreement with access to Cisco Email Security, Cisco Firepower, Cisco Stealthwatch, Cisco Talos, Cisco Threat Grid, Cisco Umbrella, and also third-party solutions. This is key to our security and maximizing operations. Because we do have the Email Security appliance and it is integrated with Threat Response, we have everything tied together. Additionally, we are using the Cisco SecureX platform, as we were a beta test for that new solution. With SecureX, we are able to pull all those applications into one pane for visibility and maintenance. This greatly maximizes our security operations.""It is a very stable program.""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 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.""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 solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features."

More Cisco Secure Endpoint Pros »

"The Application Guard and ByteGuard are useful features.""It is extremely simple to manage and deploy.""It provides good insight into the programs, applications, or websites that may need attention.""Has good RAM capacity for the power I need""A user can continue to add endpoints and the solution will continue to perform well.""The solution is very quick at easily changing the levels of protection for each computer and the server.""In most cases, the solution's ability to detect in the MITRE framework, and its ability to be able to detect attacks in any one of seven or eight different areas of the life cycle of an attack is very useful.""The deployment of updates is easy."

More Blackberry Protect Pros »

"The installation is pretty straightforward.""Threat prevention is valuable because most clients use other solutions like antivirus as part of web protection. I don't find that kind of solution useful.""The most valuable features are the prevention layer that detects the signature value and prevents threats in the network.""The solution is stable.""The product is quite user-friendly.""The thing that I like is that they have gathered almost all the products in one management server, the ePolicy Orchestrator.""Tech support is responsive. They're good, the very best.""The solution scales well."

More McAfee Endpoint Security Pros »

Cons
"...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.""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.""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 technical support is very slow.""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 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 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."

More Cisco Secure Endpoint Cons »

"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.""It should have better support for Windows and Mac.""I'd like them to do software distribution too, but they said that that's architecturally not at the product line.""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.""The process of whitelisting a script that you want to be able to run can be a little bit difficult, or awkward.""The product does not do a lot of reporting on what it is taking care of. Enhanced reporting would be a welcome improvement."

More Blackberry Protect Cons »

"I would like to see more integration with third-party products.""The vendor should simplify the way they bundle the products because it's very hard to explain to customers what products contain which features.""We would like to see all the features available on cloud.""The security of this solution needs improvement.""They can make it free, but that's not going to happen.""We have had some of our clients not happy with McAfee Endpoint Security because it blocks some of the applications they are trying to use. They should make it easier to unblock applications.""They can improve its resource consumption, such as memory, and maybe provide better or smaller updates. It always takes a lot of resources, but it has been getting better. I have been using McAfee products for the last 20 years or so, and I know it is getting better.""We don't like the solution since it requires much memory consumption and consumes much CPU resources."

More McAfee Endpoint Security Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"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.""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.""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.""Licensing fees are on a yearly basis and I am happy with the pricing.""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.""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."

More Cisco Secure Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice »

"It's not so heavily priced; rather, it's average and decent.""This cost of the license is approximately $5 USD monthly per user.""I think that the price we are paying is good for what it is.""We pay our license on a yearly basis and have just renewed for two years.""The product cost is about $5, per user, per month.""The monthly fee is $55 USD per user."

More Blackberry Protect Pricing and Cost Advice »

"I do licensing on an annual basis and this is what I always recommend to my clients over the monthly option.""The price of McAfee is pretty similar to Symantec, and there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.""I am happy with the pricing.""Its price is reasonable, but it could be made free.""It is not that expensive. There is no additional cost. We got the entire bundle together.""The price of the solution is fair, we have a complete security package.""We pay for the license on an annual basis.""Pricing is reasonable and runs at a cost per user per year."

More McAfee Endpoint Security Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
554,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection.
Top Answer: Licensing fees are on a yearly basis and I am happy with the pricing.
Top Answer: The GUI needs improvement, it's not good. There are false positives in emails. At times, the emails are blocked and… more »
Top Answer: A user can continue to add endpoints and the solution will continue to perform well.
Top Answer: I don't have any information in relation to the pricing or the licensing. it's not an aspect of the solution I deal… more »
Top Answer: Having worked with SentinelOne, Cylance is good, however, it probably needs to add a feature similar to SentinelOne's… more »
Top Answer: The flexible manageability of McAfee Endpoint Security is one of our favorite aspects of this solution. You can deploy… more »
Top Answer: Tech support is responsive. They're good, the very best.
Top Answer: People, naturally, go for a yearly license. I am happy with the pricing.
Comparisons
Also Known As
Cisco AMP for Endpoints
McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection, McAfee Endpoint Protection, Total Protection for Endpoint, Intel Security Total Protection for Endpoint, MCAFEE Complete Endpoint Protection
Learn More
Overview

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.

McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection allows you to protect all of your devices with intelligent, collaborative security, in one easy-to-manage, integrated solution. Our integrated endpoint security framework helps remove redundancies, enables fast, proven performance and offers an architecture to align both current and future security investments. With a flexible choice of cloud-based or a local management console, security administrators also get true centralized management that simplifies ongoing tasks, deployment and monitoring.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco Secure Endpoint
Learn more about Blackberry Protect
Learn more about McAfee Endpoint Security
Sample Customers
Heritage Bank, Mobile County Schools, NHL University, Thunder Bay Regional, Yokogawa Electric, Sam Houston State University, First Financial Bank
Panasonic, Noble Energy, Apria Healthcare Group Inc., Charles River Laboratories, Rovi Corporation, Toyota, Kiewit
inHouseIT, Seagate Technology
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company19%
Government13%
Manufacturing Company13%
University6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider24%
Computer Software Company23%
Government7%
Financial Services Firm5%
REVIEWERS
Manufacturing Company25%
Financial Services Firm19%
Energy/Utilities Company13%
Construction Company13%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company26%
Comms Service Provider18%
Government7%
Manufacturing Company5%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm24%
Computer Software Company16%
Government13%
Energy/Utilities Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company28%
Comms Service Provider21%
Government8%
Manufacturing Company6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise18%
Large Enterprise46%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business28%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise51%
REVIEWERS
Small Business63%
Midsize Enterprise13%
Large Enterprise23%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business28%
Midsize Enterprise27%
Large Enterprise45%
REVIEWERS
Small Business38%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise42%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business37%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise39%
Find out what your peers are saying about Blackberry Protect vs. McAfee Endpoint Security and other solutions. Updated: November 2021.
554,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Blackberry Protect is ranked 16th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 17 reviews while McAfee Endpoint Security is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 37 reviews. Blackberry Protect is rated 8.0, while McAfee Endpoint Security 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 McAfee Endpoint Security writes "Protect your business against a wide variety of threats". Blackberry Protect is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne, Carbon Black CB Defense and Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response, whereas McAfee Endpoint Security is most compared with McAfee MVISION Endpoint, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our Blackberry Protect vs. McAfee Endpoint Security 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.