We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"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 product is quite scalable."
"We have over 1,000 users using the solution in our organization and the solution has been able to handle it."
"The solution is user-friendly and the dashboard is good."
"When comparing Kaspersky Endpoint Security to any other solution, Our customers like mostly the reliability, and the ability to defend against viruses, worms, and attacks. It is easy to use and very light on the end-user machine's resources."
"It's excellent at detecting viruses."
"Overall, the product is quite flexible."
"The antivirus feature is very, very good."
"I like the security that this solution provides."
"It has a one-click button that we can use to reverse all those dodgy changes made by the virus program and bring the system quickly back to what it was. That's one of the most important features."
"It delivers the type of security which we were hoping for, since we have a lot of different endpoint users utilizing different types of software. We have people who only use Office software, like email, Word, and PDFs. Then, we have people who use some applications that other people wrote. We also write applications in-house using people who develop software. Therefore, we have some machines using very high-end developer software for mechanical development, electronic development, and software development. Those users are used to managing their PC on their own. The centralize platform allows us to differentiate between those three groups of people. We have overall control and can oversee the security levels at all the endpoints. They have not yet been blocked in any way when performing the functions"
"Our clients have been able to survive a ransomware attack without even knowing that they had had files encrypted and automatically rolled back - even their Point of Sale (POS) system did not miss a beat and the business continued as normal without interruption."
"The most valuable feature varies from client to client but having absolute clarity of what happened and the autonomous actions of SentinelOne are what most people find the most assuring."
"The best thing SentinelOne has done for us is that it gives us insight into the endpoints. We never had insight into lateral movement threats before. Once a threat known as Qbot gets on the network, it actually spreads throughout sub-networks quickly. SentinelOne has detected that and saved our bacon. We were able to get in there and stop the threat, lock it down, and prevent it from actually spreading through. It would have been 50 or 60 computers. It had spread through in a few minutes. We have a lot of HIPAA data and FERPA data that we need to keep protected."
"Previously, we had some processes related to incident response which required more steps. We needed to upload to VirusTotal, Sandbox, et cetera. Now, this process is shortened because all of the information we need is already in SentinelOne. We can briefly analyze and even respond from one management console. If someone has SOC, using the API, they can control everything. It's very cool. I think this is the future."
"The Storyline feature has significantly affected our incident response time. Originally, what would take us hours, now it takes us several minutes."
"I really love how simple and effective the product is. I really love the visibility it gives me into the endpoint. I really love that they open their product to the customer to enhance it with custom-made software, giving you the APIs to program it. Those are all things competitors don't have."
"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 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 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."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"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."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"The cloud needs to be more robust. We have 1,500 users and Kaspersky has issues handling them. It's a problem."
"The application running speed consumes that of RAM, so performance speed is an issue."
"This product could be improved by integration with Linux. The one limitation this product has is that it's not compatible with and doesn't offer protection for Linux servers. It could also be easier to configure."
"The company needs to keep developing more security measures to help keep its customers safe. If they could keep adding to security features, it would be ideal."
"The application updates and drive encryption are lacking."
"There are times when Microsoft Windows's antivirus called Defender interferes with the functionality of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. There should be better integration with Windows."
"There are many improvements needed, such as faster responses, faster notification, and immediate reports."
"he next thing that I would like to see in this solution are DLP features."
"They have tiers of support like most companies do. For the first three years, we had the top tier of their support and we would get a response from a technician quickly. We didn't have many things we had to ask of them. They would be very quick. We are now one tier down from that. The SLA for us is no longer within an hour or two. It's within half a day or something like that. As far as if I do ask a question of them, it is a little slower than what it used to be. I understand that we're at a lesser tier, but sometimes it feels like that could be a little better. I have to preface that by specifying that we're no longer paying for their top tier support."
"The solution’s distributed intelligence at the endpoint is pretty effective, but from time to time I see that the agent is not getting the full execution history or command-line parameters. I would estimate the visibility into an endpoint is around 80 percent. There is 20 percent you don't see because, for some reason, the agents don't get all of the information."
"We are now using an external monitoring tool to monitor the services of SentinelOne, because apparently they don't have any solution for that. When the SentinelOne agent is down, you can go to the interface and see a mark on SentinelOne that something is not correct or the server needs to be rebooted, but you will not get an alert. You will not be warned that there is an issue with the SentinelOne agent. I have found that a little bit disturbing, because then we need to use a third-party monitoring tool to make sure that all services of SentinelOne are up and running."
"I would like to improve the reports because they are not so customizable and we would like more info from them."
"There is an area of improvement is agent health monitoring, which would give us the ability to cap and manage resources used by the SentinelOne agent. We had issues with this in our environment. We reached out to SentinelOne about it, and they were very prompt in adding it into their roadmap."
"Generally, the stability is good, but I would like to see better stability from the solution. The stability issue is partially a con of a behavioral-based product, but being behavioral-based, it also has a lot of pros."
"We have had one or two occasions when we had to roll back off our Windows machine. Then, we had an issue with SentinelOne where we couldn't let the client make contact with the cloud service anymore. Therefore, the integration with the Windows Service Recovery could be improved in the future."
"All they need to do to improve it is for it to grow further. The hackers don't sleep. If the hackers don't sleep, the solution continually needs to be updated. They need to keep ahead of the hackers."
"The Enterprise Agreement is like an all-you-can-eat buffet of Cisco products. In that vein, it was very affordable."
"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 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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We pay a yearly annual subscription for this product."
"Kaspersky is priced well."
"I think the price of this solution is good."
"The solution requires a license and there are different license packages depending on the number of users you need."
"The price of the solution is reasonable. It is less costly compared to competitors."
"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."
"Licensing costs are on a yearly basis."
"Licensing fees are paid annually."
"You have to look at the kinds of problems you can end up with and the fact that you want security against them, and then SentinelOne is not expensive."
"Our licensing fees are about $5 USD per endpoint, per month."
"The licensing is comparable to other solutions in the market. The pricing is competitive."
"It was cheaper than McAfee, which was a way to convince management to go with the solution."
"The pricing is very reasonable."
"USD$6 per end point which decreases as end points increase."
"The solution's price/performance ratio is reasonable."
"Pricing is a bit of a pain point. That's where we have not been able to convince all of our customers to use SentinelOne. The pricing is still on the higher side. It's almost double the price, if not more, of a normal antivirus, such as NOD32, Kaspersky, or Symantec."
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.
SentinelOne delivers autonomous endpoint protection through a single agent that successfully prevents, detects, responds, and hunts attacks across all major vectors. Designed for extreme ease of use, the S1 platform saves customers time by applying AI to automatically eliminate threats in real-time for both on-premise and cloud environments and is the only solution to provide full visibility across networks directly from the endpoint. To learn more visit www.sentinelone.com or follow us at @SentinelOne, on LinkedIn or Facebook.
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 13th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 55 reviews while SentinelOne is ranked 2nd in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 20 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0, while SentinelOne is rated 9.8. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "A mature product offering good protection and very good features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SentinelOne writes "Made a tremendous difference in our ability to protect our endpoints and servers". Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Sophos Intercept X, CrowdStrike Falcon and Blackberry Protect, whereas SentinelOne is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Carbon Black CB Defense, Darktrace and Check Point Harmony Endpoint. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business vs. SentinelOne 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.