Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Security ENS

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

During the pandemic all our users worked remotely that was challenging from security perspective, so we had to deploy the endpoint protection system with cloud based monitoring server. By doing that we were able to keep safety for users workspaces even though some of them did not connect to VPN for a long time

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

• Provides high fidelity alerting.
• Allows CSOC analysts to perform forensic triage and alert investigations through containment from a single pane of glass.
• Provides alert telemetry across on-disk and in-memory attacks.
• Supports many additional 'bolt-on' modules to provide additional alert context or capabilities.

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

• My biggest flak with McAfee Endpoint Security is that it is quite resource-intensive. It does tend to make the system a little slow. You get security at the expense of your machine's speed.
• Even though the drive encryption makes the system more secure, it takes a lot of time to first enter the very long password, and then for it to decrypt the whole machine. This sometimes clashes with Windows update and causes a lot of complications which leads to boot loops.

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

So below is my breakdown, Pro's: Centralized Management, Comprehensive Protection and customization. Con's: Initial cost

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

The support is pretty good, and I haven't had any issues with getting the highest quality technical support when there are issues. Tech support representatives that I have dealt with know the product quite well and have solved many issues that I have had with the product in the past. The only issue I have with support is that it can be quite expensive.

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

We only selected McAfee because we are already using ESET NOD32 for the protection of our desktops and laptops. We didn't want to use the same software for our servers so we chose McAfee instead. I personally like ESET Smart Security better than McAfee when deploying it on a desktop or laptop because I think it protects the PC better. When it comes to web protection, policy updates, etc., McAfee is the better choice and that's why we deployed it on our servers.

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

• This tool helped us in delegating the asset safety responsibility to the client level by 80%, leaving 20% for the management console.
• With a decent pricing, the benefits are slightly above expectations. The ROI is good.
• But, considering most of the malware comes from internet, with a good email security appliance and next gen firewall in place, the online security alerts are now redundant. It could be something that can be termed as overkill on the budget.

Incentivized