We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and ESET Endpoint Protection Platform 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."Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The product provides sandboxing options like file reputation and file analysis."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its technical support."
"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."
"Its most valuable features are its scalability and advanced threat protection for customers."
"It used to take us a month to find out that something is infected, we now know that same day, as soon it is infected."
"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."
"It's quite simple, and the advantage I see is that I get the trajectory of what happened inside the network, how a file has been transmitted to the workstation, and which files have got corrupted."
"Secure Endpoint has decreased our time to remediate by providing the tools and the integrations we need so we can quickly look across our entire network, look for those threats, and actually make good decisions."
"The product is quite affordable."
"The tool protects everything."
"Technical support has been very good. They are helpful and responsive."
"We have not picked up a bug yet, because we use ESET, which is a tried and proven system."
"The tools and the features available with this solution are very competitive. It is always updated to prevent upcoming attacks."
"The most valuable features of this solution are, of course, the IPS/IDS, Intrusion Prevention, Intrusion Detection, and Antivirus."
"This solution does not slow down your systems. It is very light."
"I would say that this solution has the best support team in this kind of Endpoint protection product."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"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."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"The user interface is dull."
"This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports."
"I would like more seamless integration."
"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."
"The initial setup is a bit complex because you need to execute existing antiviruses or security software that you have on your device."
"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."
"Integration and dashboard are areas with certain shortcomings in Cisco Secure Endpoint."
"The reporting and analytics areas of the solution need to be improved."
"The solution lacks the automation I need."
"If I were in an environment that required a large-scale deployment then I would choose another solution over ESET."
"The solution includes only Intrusion Detection and not IPS, which is an important feature that is missing in my version."
"In the future, a cloud version of the solution would be great."
"The adware module could be improved."
"The scalability could be better."
"It would be great to have VIP functions added to the solution in a future release."
"The integration capabilities might be lacking a bit."
More ESET Endpoint Protection Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 44 reviews while ESET Endpoint Protection Platform is ranked 11th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 97 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while ESET Endpoint Protection Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Single dashboard management, quick infrastructure threat detection, and high level support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ESET Endpoint Protection Platform writes "Easy to set up with good security and rapidly improving capabilities". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and Fortinet FortiClient, whereas ESET Endpoint Protection Platform is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Check Point Harmony Endpoint. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. ESET Endpoint Protection Platform 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.