We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The solution makes it possible to see a threat once and block it everywhere across all endpoints and the entire security platform. It has the ability to block right down to the file and application level across all devices based on policies, such as, blacklisting and whitelisting of software and applications. This is good. Its strength is the ability to identify threats very quickly, then lock them and the network down and block the threats across the organization and all devices, which is what you want. You don't want to be spending time working out how to block something. You want to block something very quickly, letting that flow through to all the devices and avoiding the same scenario on different operating systems."
"The entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"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 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 threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great."
"Among the most valuable features are the exclusions. And on the scalability side, we can integrate well with the SIEM orchestration engine and a number of applications that are proprietary or open source."
"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."
"Stability is a primary factor, and then there's the ease of distribution and policy management."
"The management capabilities, allow an IT organization to get quite a good picture of attempted cyber attacks."
"The solution doesn't need a high level of technical training."
"The user interface of the solution is sophisticated and straightforward."
"It collects and caches and the knowledge of machine learning from different customers to take to the cloud. It makes it better to use for everybody. It allows for quick learning and updates and can, therefore, offer zero-day malware security. This sharing of metadata helps make the solution very safe."
"The dashboard is customizable."
"I like the centralized console and the predictive analysis it does of malware. It is very stable and also scalable."
"Its interface and pricing are most valuable. It is better than other vendors in terms of security."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"Technical support is excellent."
"I have not received any complaints about the performance."
"The agents are easy to deploy."
"MVISION Endpoint is so much easier and so much simpler for the lay security personnel to handle."
"We don't have issues. We think that Cisco covers all of the security aspects on the market. They continue to innovate in the right way."
"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 room for improvement would be on event notifications. I have mine tuned fairly well. I do feel that if you subscribe to all the event notification types out-of-the-box, or don't really go through and take the time to filter out events, the notifications can become overwhelming with information. Sometimes, when you're overwhelmed with information, you just say, "I'm not going to look at anything because I'm receiving so much." I recommend the vendor come up with a white paper on the best practices for event notifications."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"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."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"The GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"Maybe there is room for improvement in some of the automated remediation. We have other tools in place that AMP feeds into that allow for that to happen, so I look at it as one seamless solution. But if you're buying AMP all by itself, I don't know if it can remove malicious software after the fact or if it requires the other tools that we use to do some of that."
"It would be good if they could make an exception for applications. Sometimes, it can be a bit of a challenge to make exceptions for certain applications that have been used as rogue."
"A little bit more automation would be nice."
"There are some third-party solutions that are difficult to integrate with, which is something that can be improved."
"Technology evolves every day, so it would be nice if it gets more secure. It can also have more integration with other platforms."
"I would like to see some additional features related to email protection included."
"It would be good to have a better way to search for a file within the UI."
"It is not a suitable solution if you are looking for a single product with multiple features such as DLP, encryption, rollback, etc."
"It is not very strong in terms of endpoint management. It should have additional features like DLP, encryption, or advanced device control. Currently, Cortex is good in terms of the security of the endpoints, but it is not as good as other vendors in terms of the management of the endpoint."
"Intrusion detection and intervention seem to be falling behind the competition."
"Endpoint resource utilization causes high levels of instability and that is something that needs improvement."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
"A policy-editing console should be added."
"MVISION Endpoint is only compatible with Windows 10 and Windows 2016 and above. If I were using a Linux operating system, I would not be able to use MVISION Endpoint."
"The initial setup can be a bit complicated for those unfamiliar with the product."
"The pricing and licensing are reasonable. The cost of AMP for Endpoints is inline with all the other software that has a monthly endpoint cost. It might be a little bit higher than other antivirus type products, but we're only talking about a dollar a month per user. I don't see that cost as being an issue if it's going to give us the confidence and security that we're looking for. We have had a lot of success and happiness with what we're using, so there's no point in changing."
"There is also the Cisco annual subscription plus my management time in terms of what I do with the Cisco product. I spend a minimal amount of time on it though, just rolling out updates as they need them and monitoring the console a couple of times a day to ensure nothing is out of control. Cost-wise, we are quite happy with it."
"In our case, it is a straightforward annual payment through our Enterprise Agreement."
"The visibility that we have into the endpoint and the forensics that we're able to collect give us value for the price. This is not an overly expensive solution, considering all the things that are provided. You get great performance and value for the cost."
"We can know if something bad is potentially happening instantaneously and prevent it from happening. We can go to a device and isolate it before it infects other devices. In our environment, that's millions of dollars saved in a matter of seconds."
"The Enterprise Agreement is like an all-you-can-eat buffet of Cisco products. In that vein, it was very affordable."
"We have a license for 3,000 users and if we get up to 3,100 users, it doesn't stop working, but on the next renewal date you're supposed to go in there and add that extra 100 licenses. It's really good that they let you grow and expand and then pay for it. Sometimes, with other products, you overuse a license and they just don't work."
"Our company was very happy with the price of Cisco AMP. It was about a third of what we were paying for System Center Endpoint Protection."
"If one wishes to work with another team or large number of users at a future point, he must purchase a license for them."
"The pricing is okay, although direct support can be expensive."
"I don't have any issues with the pricing. We are satisfied with the price."
"Our customers have expressed that the price is high."
"It's about $55 per license on a yearly basis."
"This is an expensive solution."
"We pay about $50,000 USD per year for a bundle that includes Cortex XDR."
"It has a yearly renewal."
"Customers would need to purchase a license. If a customer purchases an MVISION Endpoint license, he may use that license to install ENS. It's a flexible license where you have the option to either use the McAfee security software or the Windows Defender managed by McAfee, which is MVISION Endpoint."
"The pricing is mid-ranged and quite reasonable compared to other similar products."
"MVISION is intended as an enterprise product and it is priced like one. This solution is within the price range of competitors at the enterprise level."
"Licensing fees are billed on a yearly basis."
"It is based on an annual subscription."
Advanced Malware Protection (AMP) is subscription-based, managed through a web-based management console, and deployed on a variety of platforms that protects endpoints, network, email and web Traffic. AMP key features include the following: Global threat intelligence to proactively defend against known and emerging threats, Advanced sandboxing that performs automated static and dynamic analysis of files against more than 700 behavioral indicators, Point-in-time malware detection and blocking in real time and Continuous analysis and retrospective security regardless of the file's disposition and Continuous analysis and retrospective security.
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is the world's first detection and response app that natively integrates network, endpoint and cloud data to stop sophisticated attacks. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks accurately detects threats with behavioral analytics and reveals the root cause to speed up investigations.
McAfee MVISION Endpoint delivers enhanced detection and correction capabilities to augment native Microsoft Windows security controls, which are always up to date. Machine learning, credential theft monitoring, and rollback remediation boost the basic security built into the Windows and effectively combat advanced, zero-day threats.
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 6th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 28 reviews while McAfee MVISION Endpoint is ranked 27th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 6 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.2, while McAfee MVISION Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "Has a centralized console and does predictive analysis of malware". On the other hand, the top reviewer of McAfee MVISION Endpoint writes "This recognized brand has been reliable in the past but seems to be losing ground to competition". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, SentinelOne and Check Point Harmony Endpoint, whereas McAfee MVISION Endpoint is most compared with McAfee Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Sophos Intercept X, Trend Micro Apex One and Check Point Harmony Endpoint. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. McAfee MVISION Endpoint report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection for Business (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.