We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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."
"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 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 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."
"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."
"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 really protects and does its job. It totally blocked every attack attempt, and no attack attempt was successful."
"The most valuable feature is the management of end-user machines."
"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."
"It's a very easy-to-use product."
"I find the security heartbeat feature with synchronized security very useful. It's a very nice feature that allows you to basically switch off an endpoint. When an endpoint has got a virus or something like that, or it's infected or compromised, you can isolate it from the network, but only if you've got an XG Firewall as well. It also provides ease of use. It is the only antivirus that can recognize 25 out of the 36 ransomware and virus techniques that have been often used in terms of the behavior base using heuristics. It's beautiful, utterly amazing. No other antivirus can do that."
"It is one of the best in terms of technicality."
"The patches on offer are very helpful."
"Synchronization with the firewall is most valuable."
"The solution is scalable."
"The pricing is fair. It's not too costly for our small organization."
"This is really good because it's applicable to zero-day threats."
"The most valuable features are the anti-ransomware engine, deep learning, web filtering, and the cloud manageability."
"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 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."
"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 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 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 technical support is very slow."
"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."
"The licensing fees are high. The company should work to try to lower them for the customer."
"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."
"Their support is not very good because they are very late to reply."
"I would like the solution to have more functions and to be more user-friendly."
"The technical support is the lone sore-point when dealing with this product."
"The performance is very slow and should be faster."
"The security is good but the feature set is limited."
"Through Sophos Central I would like to see the ability to zero in and produce a report about the challenges being faced by a particular machine and user, to know if a virus is appearing only on that specific machine or also on others."
"Needs more flexible reporting, particularly for medium to large size companies."
"It has a performance hit on a local laptop. There's an agent installed and we are bothered a lot by it because it seems to be using a lot of computer resources."
"They don't have the full stack of offerings as compared to the other competitive products that we see."
"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."
"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."
"In our case, it is a straightforward annual payment through our Enterprise Agreement."
"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."
"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."
"The price of this product should be lower."
"It was about 35 or 40 bucks per year for the endpoint."
"One can pay for the license annually, or at two and five year intervals."
"Compared to other solutions, such as CrowdStrike, we are most certainly happy with its pricing. We did a three year-business deal."
"Its cost is good."
"Intercept X for endpoints is around $35 per user per year. The server version is $95 per server per year."
"The solution requires an annual subscription."
"We have bought a three-year license."
"The pricing is average for software like this, but you can purchase additional services if you wish."
"The price of this product should be reduced because it is a little high."
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.
Sophos Intercept X stops the widest range of attacks with a unique combination of deep learning malware detection, exploit prevention, anti-ransomware, and more.
Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection is ranked 35th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 4 reviews while Sophos Intercept X is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 51 reviews. Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection is rated 7.2, while Sophos Intercept X is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection writes "Flexible, easy-to-use, and scales well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sophos Intercept X writes "Great reporting and good training with a pretty straightforward setup". Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection is most compared with Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and McAfee Endpoint Security, whereas Sophos Intercept X is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne and Seqrite Endpoint Security. See our Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection vs. Sophos Intercept X 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.