Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Microsoft System Center Endpoint Protection

Cisco Secure Endpoint is well suited for keeping track of the many different and points that we have in our organization. All of these devices can easily be monitored with Cisco Secure Endpoint. It can monitor our servers and our desktops and laptops in our environment. It isn’t as appropriate for our student devices. However, those aren’t as critical since they are just Chromebooks.

Incentivized

It is well suited in environments that want a simple AV product/solution that, for the most part, can be easily deployed to client endpoints. It is also good for environments that want something that is easy to use by end-users, and also doesn't use a whole lot of system resources. It is less suited for environments that want an AV solution that is more robust feature-wise, or has more configurable options for the end-users. It is also less suited for those organizations that want an AV product to have the highest detection rate in the industry.

Incentivized

• Threat identification: it finds things we wouldn't have even been looking for.
• Integration with Secure Malware Analytics for automatic submission of suspicious files.
• In-depth and complex configuration options for finely tuned policies for different users and endpoints.
• Part of the Cisco Secure Client product for easier distribution and reduction of running agents on end-user devices
• Integrates with Secure-X for single-pane of glass view of dashboards.

Incentivized

• Easy administration.
• Centralized management, patch deployment, and reporting.
• Easy auto-patch updating from Microsoft.
• Microsoft antivirus app with no special licensing required.

Incentivized

• The update mechanism of the client is not obvious and takes some finesse to learn
• The clients auto update signatures, but not agents which I have seen lead to mixed version levels as it is harder to keep up with
• It is generally a challenge to manage the licenses and if you let the license lapse, it is a very bad thing in my opinion.

Incentivized

• The product could improve in the area of having better mechanisms in place with how the SCEP client is deployed/installed from the server on the management side. We have run into this firsthand with the client not installing on an endpoint, and then having to take the time to investigate why it was not installing.
• A second improvement that can be made is to keep trying to improve the products detection rate for finding malware/viruses. The case can be made that there are some products out there that do a better job at this and have a higher detection rate.

Incentivized

the renewal must be studied with different factors

Incentivized

AMP is very difficult to use compared to other products we've seen. It's hard to understand why there are so many different logins for the various products that supposedly integrate with AMP. We had weekly phone calls for months to implement the product yet none of the IT department really enjoys using this product or feels comfortable with the accuracy of detections. The number of false positives is high.

Incentivized

It is integrated with Windows and SCCM, making it easy to use, license, manage, and update. Additionally, it is straightforward to diagnose when virus and ransomware alerts are detected on endpoints. IT Service Desk management is also easy.

Incentivized

no complain and no issue with availability

Incentivized

In terms of technical support for Cisco Secure Endpoint, the support has been pretty good. All the cases I submitted were solved in a reasonable time frame, and it was a good experience. However, I find that not as many vendors have the expertise I would expect.

Incentivized

There was a time and a place in which Microsoft System Center Endpoint Protection was an excellent choice to provide threat protections. However, now that threats have been evolving, so too does the need for more advanced protections. In its current offering, it just no longer meets the needs of our organization in terms of providing protections against threats.

Incentivized

no participation in implementation

Incentivized

Other products we use were, I think, well, nothing like Cisco Endpoint. There was Microsoft Defender. I think Sophos and CrowdStrike. I think the visibility and the security. We haven't had any issues with the system. Once it's been implemented, it works fine. The enhancements that come into play, we're benefiting from them. We're benefiting from the Telos threat intel, which is really good as well

Incentivized

Fewer licensing requirements, one less vendor to buy from, one less app to package, deploy, and update on systems. It is an integrated license to Windows that comes baked in when you have AD-connected systems and need to allow that system on the network. It's a natural tool that enables and uses with little complication after setup.

Incentivized

• It ensures minimal spread of cyber threats in case of infiltration thanks to containment response capabilities.
• By keeping our endpoints threat-proof, our systems and devices run efficiently hence better productivity.
• It frees IT staff thanks to its automation and ability to keep threats away with minimal intervention.

Incentivized

• There was little/no cost associated with this software since we are utilizing SCCM and are paying license costs for that anyways.
• The level or protection is excellent for the cost of the software.
• There was at least one instance in which Microsoft System Center Endpoint Protection identified a crypto-malware, but not before it had already started to encrypt many of our files. So it did detect the threat, but since it was a little delayed we still were infected.

Incentivized