We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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 entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It really protects and does its job. It totally blocked every attack attempt, and no attack attempt was successful."
"It's a very easy-to-use product."
"They offer the whole package. Remote monitoring and management (RMM) is included with it, which is pretty nice. They also have Windows patching and third-party patching. It was easy to use for protection. The containment engine was pretty nice for securing our environment."
"The most valuable feature is the management of end-user machines."
"I like the centralized console and the predictive analysis it does of malware. It is very stable and also scalable."
"The dashboard is customizable."
"They have a new GUI which is just fantastic."
"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."
"The behavior-based detection feature is valuable."
"They did what they said. This solution could apply to any scenario."
"The solution doesn't need a high level of technical training."
"The management capabilities, allow an IT organization to get quite a good picture of attempted cyber attacks."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"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."
"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."
"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 GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"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."
"They need to just modernize the infrastructure with something that is next-generation. We have recently moved to SentinelOne. It had been doing good for us for a while, but we needed something modern with new technology."
"The licensing fees are high. The company should work to try to lower them for the customer."
"Their support is not very good because they are very late to reply."
"They need to enhance the performance of the agents. Currently, the performance is going low when the agent starts a full scan. The agent is consuming a lot of resources while scanning. When there are a lot of documents to check, it slows down the endpoint. This is the only thing that worries me about Comodo, but this issue is also there in other products. It is missing DLP, and I know that they are working on adding some data loss prevention capabilities. They have added some capabilities, but these capabilities are not yet mature. I hope they will enhance these capabilities because it is important to prevent the data from going out from inside. We are protected from the outside, but we also have to be protected from the inside out."
"It'll help if customization was easier."
"Impact on system performance is horrible, adding a lot of delays for users."
"The solution can never really be an on-premises solution based simply on the way it is set up. It needs metadata to run and improve. Having an on-premises solution would cut it off from making improvements."
"The installation should be easier and the Palo Alto pre-sales and sales teams should have more information on the product because they don't know what they are selling."
"It should support more mobile operating systems. That is one of the cons of their infrastructure right now."
"Technology evolves every day, so it would be nice if it gets more secure. It can also have more integration with other platforms."
"The connection to the internet has not performed as expected."
"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 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."
"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."
"Licensing fees are on a yearly basis and I am happy with the pricing."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The price of this product should be lower."
"It was about 35 or 40 bucks per year for the endpoint."
"The price of the solution is high for the license and in general."
"Its pricing is kind of in line with its competitors and everybody else out there."
"If one wishes to work with another team or large number of users at a future point, he must purchase a license for them."
"The price is on the higher side, but it's okay."
"Every customer has to pay for a license because it doesn't work with what you get from a managed services provider."
"Our customers have expressed that the price is high."
"The pricing is okay, although direct support can be expensive."
"I don't have any issues with the pricing. We are satisfied with the price."
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.
Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection (AEP) delivers patent-pending auto-containment, where unknown executables and other files that request runtime privileges are automatically run in a virtual contain that does not have access to the host system's resources or user data.
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.
Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection is ranked 35th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 4 reviews while Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 6th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 28 reviews. Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection is rated 7.2, while Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection writes "Flexible, easy-to-use, and scales well". 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". Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection is most compared with Sophos Intercept X, Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne and ESET Endpoint Security, whereas Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, SentinelOne and Check Point Harmony Endpoint. See our Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection 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.