We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Intercept X Endpoint based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cisco Secure Endpoint stands out for its threat-hunting capabilities, sandboxing, and swift response to attacks. Users also praised the solution's seamless integration with Talos for continuous protection. Intercept X Endpoint combines two products into one solution, offering strong performance, server protection, and efficient threat management capabilities. Cisco Secure Endpoint could benefit from providing more scenario-based information and a simpler, more customizable main dashboard. Integration with artificial intelligence and IoT is another area for improvement. Intercept X Endpoint could integrate more seamlessly with third-party vendors and improve support for virtual infrastructures.
Service and Support: Users said Cisco support is efficient and responsive, and customers also found it easy to find answers in the documentation without help. Some users recommend enhancing training programs and streamlining management consoles to further enhance the level of support provided. Some users found Intercept X Endpoint's support team knowledgeable and supportive, while others expressed dissatisfaction with responsiveness.
Ease of Deployment: Users generally found Cisco Secure Endpoint easy to set up, but some users reported challenges related to agent behavior and configuration. The initial installation involves downloading an agent and installing it on endpoints, and total deployment time ranged from a week to several months. Intercept X Endpoint has a straightforward initial setup, with quick installation and simple configuration and maintenance. Some users said they occasionally encountered issues that required reinstallation.
Pricing: Cisco Secure Endpoint's pricing is seen as fair and reasonable. Some users requested additional discounts, particularly for educational purposes. Intercept X Endpoint is generally seen as fairly priced, but some users think it’s on the higher end of the price scale.
ROI: Cisco Secure Endpoint offers cost savings and the potential to earn money by extending services. Users say that Intercept X Endpoint offers exceptional defense against ransomware and zero-day threats, leading to a positive return on investment.
Comparison Results: Our users favor Cisco Secure Endpoint over Intercept X Endpoint. Cisco Secure Endpoint offers more comprehensive protection, better customer service, and support, making it the preferred choice. Cisco Secure Endpoint has some advanced features for finding and resolving threats that Intercept X lacks. Users also appreciate Cisco Secure Endpoint's pricing, whereas some users say Intercept X Endpoint has room to improve on price.
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection."
"Its most valuable features are its scalability and advanced threat protection for customers."
"The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that there is a lot more malware slipping through my email filters than I expected."
"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."
"The solution is easy to deploy and applies multi-factor authentication."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its technical support."
"The product itself is pretty reliable. The security features that it has make it reliable."
"Everything in Intercept X Endpoints is much centralised which makes it easy for our team to work with. The functions are in a single portal."
"A valuable feature offered by Sophos is called Naked Security, and it entails the control managed by the firewall on the site regarding the desktop client interfacing with our cloud client."
"The most valuable features of Sophos Intercept X are the minimal configuration needed for the end user and the central view of all the endpoints. There are plenty of tools to control and manage the endpoints. Additionally, there is the capability of connecting the endpoint to the CLI."
"This is really good because it's applicable to zero-day threats."
"The package we use also comes with spam filtering features, which are quite useful."
"The most valuable feature of Intercept X its ability to stay ahead of the infection. By the time the ransomware spreads to the next machine in line, the data has already been encrypted on that workstation. It didn't matter what the ransomware did because could go in and get it back."
"Sophos Intercept X is a very effective solution and its being cloud-based is a benefit. Wherever my users are, I can apply policies to them. In the era of mobility, when users are out of the office or they're in different locations, it doesn't matter."
"The solution is easy to install."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"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 solution is not user-friendly."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"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."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"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."
"The reporting and analytics areas of the solution need to be improved."
"They could improve the main dashboard to more clearly show me the things that I want to see. When I open the dashboard right now, I see a million things and they are not always the things that I need."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"...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."
"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 integration of the Cisco products for security could be better in the sense that not everything is integrated, and they aren't working together. In addition, not all products are multi-tenant, so you can't separate different customer environments from each other, which makes it a little bit hard for a managed service provider to deliver services to the customers."
"As for improvement, more notifications or emails about what to watch out for globally would be nice. For instance, information about the spread of a current phishing campaign or ransomware would be very helpful. I find that I have to dig in the back to find out what is happening on the global scene for things to be aware of."
"They should keep doing what they're doing. Both of them have entered the EDR/MDR space, and they're keeping up with their competitors. I have a hard time understanding why their capabilities aren't garnering more attention."
"Sophos Intercept X doesn't have its own firewall that utilizes the Windows Firewall or intrusion prevention."
"It would be a value-add if they can include integration with other technologies or solutions, like Fortinet, Blue Coat, etc."
"We tried to set up Sophos Zero Trust within my Sophos central cloud. It only works with Microsoft and I use Google. I'd like to see Google added."
"Intercept X could enhance its support services, particularly in terms of response time and resource allocation."
"We are considering switching from this solution as a result of the closer integration needed between the firewall systems and the EDR."
"The performance is very slow and should be faster."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 45 reviews while Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4. 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 Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Seqrite Endpoint Security. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Intercept X Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.