We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Fortinet FortiClient based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Its most valuable features are its scalability and advanced threat protection for customers."
"The simplicity of use is its most valuable feature. You can very clearly see things."
"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."
"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 VPN is most valuable. It's the best thing in the market today. We can use two-factor authentication with another platform, and we can authenticate with two-factor."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the IPS and the integration with ISE."
"Device Trajectory is one of the most valuable features. We're able to dig in and really understand how things came to be and where to focus our efforts."
"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."
"Installation was easy."
"It is very simple to use. I've used some of the others in the past, such as Cisco AnyConnect, which was a nightmare. I've used a couple of others, but FortiClient is very simple to use."
"It seems to be more scalable than we thought."
"It is very powerful."
"When the user gets authenticated, I can assign a different VPN or network to each user."
"The solution is stable, we have not had any issues in the time we have been using it."
"The solution has inexpensive scalability, works very well and can communicate with other Fortinet devices."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"An easier way to do deduplication of machines, or be alerted to the fact that there's more than one instance of a machine, would be useful... That way you could get a more accurate device count, so you're not having an inflated number."
"The Linux agent is a simple offline classic agent, and it doesn't support Secure Boot, which is important to have on a Linux machine. The Linux agent has conflicts with other solutions, including the Exploit Prevention system found in Windows servers. We didn't find a fix during troubleshooting, and Cisco couldn't offer one either. Eventually, we had to shut down the Exploit Prevention system. We didn't like that as we always want a solution that can fit smoothly into the setup without causing problems, especially where security is concerned. The tool also caused CPU spikes on our production machine, and we were seriously considering moving to another product."
"It cannot currently block URLs over websites."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"The user interface is dull."
"We would like to have an API integration with a SIEM solution, because as far as I know, it currently hasn't yet been released."
"It could be improved in connection with artificial intelligence and IoT."
"Due to the complexity of the technology that is used and its advanced threat detection capabilities, it is possible to encounter many delays in operation."
"Technical support needs to determine priority level based on the cases rather than the support package bundle."
"The price could also use improvement."
"There isn't much to improve in terms of features and comparison with other vendors. It just needs to stay more up to date in catching the malware. The user interface may be improved, which would be a minor enhancement. Unlike central management, in endpoint security, the end users don't need to keep looking at the endpoint user interface. The technology is the most important thing in endpoint security."
"Cloud services are very expensive for us."
"We'd like to be able to properly encrypt the data more effectively."
"In terms of improvements, their SSL VPN tunnel can be a lot better. I've seen other products that have got much better VPN features than Fortinet. Some of my colleagues get this error called "License not available." When they get this error, they have to uninstall and reinstall it. This kind of problem is there, and sometimes, we have to open a case with Fortinet to resolve it. Their support is quick, so we are able to resolve and move forward. In terms of new features, when it is connecting, it should check the endpoint and say whether the end client is actually safe enough or whether there is a vulnerability. It should give a pop-up on the client itself. Because I'm on the admin side, I can also see this information in the log. However, if a non-IT user, such as a user from finance, is working on this and there is some problem, he or she would not know about this and would call IT admin to say that this is not working. If the users get a message explaining why and what is happening, it is easy for them to understand."
"I think that FortiClient can enhance the multifactor authentication."
"It would be interesting if the solution offered a way to try to investigate and create a use case to trace vectors."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 44 reviews while Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 86 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Makes it possible to see a threat once and block it across all endpoints and your entire security platform". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiClient writes "Easy to set up and user-friendly with good support ". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and Trend Micro Apex One, whereas Fortinet FortiClient is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and Ivanti Connect Secure. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Fortinet FortiClient report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (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.
