We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Sophos Intercept X Competitors and Alternatives

Get our free report covering Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Kaspersky, and other competitors of Sophos Intercept X. Updated: November 2021.
554,382 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Sophos Intercept X competitors and alternatives

Mark Bonnamy
Technical Director at Ridgewall Ltd
Reseller
Top 5
Targets issues more accurately, helping us to focus high-cost engineering resources more accurately

Pros and Cons

  • "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 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."
  • "...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."

What is our primary use case?

We needed an endpoint security product and this was the one that we chose. We also use Cisco Umbrella, which fits in neatly with the endpoint as endpoints are moving, more and more, out of the office now. Traditionally, it's slightly harder to manage that, so we use Cisco AMP and Umbrella on those endpoints to secure them.

It's almost entirely on-premise. Although there are some small cloud installations where we use it.

How has it helped my organization?

The fact that the solution offers cloud-delivered endpoint protection makes it simpler to use. Historically, Cisco's appliances have been relatively expensive and that has been a block to Cisco getting into the SME space, which is our particular focus. Having it cloud-based, where there's no cost, as such, to get the deployment running, has made it easier to sell to small businesses. We've got AMP installations with as few as two users. In the past, with Cisco, we would never have been able to deliver into that size of business without some sort of cloud for delivering it.

It also has a neat web interface that allows us to access it simply and therefore more people are able to manage it, rather than it being a specialist product. We're able to give it to more junior people on the helpdesk and they're able to determine quite quickly and simply what the state of the environment is and, if needed, escalate it to more senior people if they believe there's an issue. That's worked well for us.

We had quite a large client that had a partial AMP installation only covering key assets, and they were hit by ransomware. It was only Cisco AMP that showed where the problems were. The rest of the antivirus that they had across the estate was completely ineffective. AMP was intact and it gave the engineers the vital information they required to remediate the problem. With all attacks what we're interested in is knowing what was "patient zero," where the problem came in, and where it's spread. That can be a challenge sometimes when you've got multiple devices in a network and you're looking across a large number of PCs to work out who was compromised first and, therefore, what the course of action is.

It has decreased our time to remediate. In the scenario of the client that was hit by ransomware, effectively, none of the endpoints were compromised. We were able to detect what the issue was via the AMP client, which discovered and alerted us to what the actual problem was. We then had to do a cleanup process on the remaining. It certainly showed its value to us and the client in that particular incident. It is hard to say how much time it saved us, because in that particular incident they only had a limited deployment. It actually took six man-days to solve the problem, but it didn't affect any of the AMP clients. It arguably could have taken even longer, had they not had AMP deployed on at least some of the assets. It's very simple: If they had had AMP on all of them, they would have probably avoided the problem in the first place. And they certainly wouldn't have needed six days to actually resolve the issue.

Cisco Threat Response accelerates Cisco Umbrella security operation functions. The abilities of Talos are definitely one of the reasons we bought into this as a product. It enables us to react more quickly. We're relying on Cisco providing that updated information in a timely fashion, and that obviously has a knock-on effect on our ability to support our clients if they've been compromised. That ability to push information automatically into Talos and their environment and then prove it's a problem or otherwise, and then update the system automatically, saves us an enormous amount of time. It gives us a lot of confidence in what we do, because Cisco is able to update things and do that part of the function for us, rather than our relying on in-house skills to try to determine what is good and what is bad.

We use it internally, in our business, to secure us, as we are an MSP, which means we are at particular risk. Obviously, we have a duty of care for our clients to ensure that we take the utmost responsibility and steps to secure our businesses and, in turn, secure our clients' businesses. The Cisco suite of security solutions definitely gives us a great deal of comfort that we are doing that. Relying on Cisco for those updates certainly takes a load off my mind, knowing that we've got the backing of Talos across the suite of products. We feel, with all the steps we have taken, that there are very few gaps in our security.

The solution has also made our team more effective by being able to focus on high-value initiatives. We have it integrated into our helpdesk system where it alerts us of things that are of particular concern. That minimizes the amount of time that we're looking at non-threatening situations. A lot of these systems can throw up an awful lot of information and you can end up spending an awful lot of time looking at things that aren't an issue — false positives. If we're able to target things more accurately, it helps us focus that high-cost engineering resource more accurately. It does save time and money.

Cisco AMP has definitely decreased our time to detection, relative to where we were with previous products. Before this type of next-gen solution, we were relying on things like antivirus, which is pretty poor and didn't produce much in the way of protection, certainly around ransomware and other things. We were relying heavily on perimeter protection, like firewalls. That was, of course, completely ineffective when people took their laptops home. The risk was great and we saw more people bringing problems back into the business. The AMP and Umbrella combination has made life a lot more secure and enables us to deliver consistent policy, which is the other important thing. When people are in our building, we've got a reasonably consistent policy because we have greater control. But the minute a person leaves the building and connects via a phone or at an internet cafe, we lose most of the traditional protection we had. The endpoint becomes everything.

The decrease in time to detection has been significant. It's very hard to put a percentage to it because, before it, we were often blissfully unaware that devices had a problem at all. It's given us visibility and we are much more effective. I'm guessing in terms of what it saves time-wise, because it's given us visibility that we otherwise didn't have, but I would say 80 percent, if I had to put a figure on it.

What is most valuable?

It has a number of valuable features. One of them is its ability to look across the estate. 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.

It has worked well where there have been compromises of clients and the software has automatically sent a sample to Cisco. Cisco has very quickly turned that around and an update has been issued and therefore, within an hour, all the devices are protected against it. We've been quite impressed with that.

We're a Cisco-centric organization. We use things like Cisco FirePOWER, the Next Gen features, as well as Umbrella portal and AMP. We've got a SIEM solution and we see all the events. It gives us a very good overall view of what's going on, very quickly.

We get all the alerts fed in centrally and it enables the security team to act upon them quickly. The alerts seem to be high-quality. We don't get an awful lot of false positives. With the dashboards it's clear, and you can understand quickly where the issues are, with instant responses.

The tools provided by the solution to help you investigate and mitigate threats are very helpful too. I'm the person who manages the engineers, so I don't use it on a day-to-day basis. I use it to get an overall view of, and a feeling for, where our various clients are in terms of issues: How secure they are, whether the engineers have been acting upon threats, etc. But our engineers like the product very much. 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.

All our engineers have been very impressed with the features that it delivers and the fact that it has been low impact on the endpoints. It hasn't caused us any problems with performance. Generally, it's a very well-liked product amongst the engineering team.

What needs improvement?

Some of the dashboards don't always populate with data. Most of them do, but some of them don't. 

Another issue for me, that would be 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. If I were Cisco, that would be my greatest focus of all because it would be of such great value if I could give one pane of glass to an engineer and he could look across all the Cisco products. 

The other thing I would say to Cisco is they need to move more to a consumption model like Office 365, because I want to be able to sell it and deploy it by just adding things on to a particular client.

For example, you set a client up on the AMP portal, which I'm looking at as I speak. I have X number of clients. If I need to sell or deploy Umbrella, I've got to go through a completely different process and enter exactly the same sort of thing. I've got to create the client somewhere else, I've got to put the information somewhere else, and I've got to run the deployment from somewhere else. Whereas with the Office 365 model, I'm able to upgrade packages and add features and functionality all from the one place. That is an incredibly powerful selling tool.

The other area for improvement is to make billing simpler. The billing process for us is hard where we've got those two users. We've got to create a separate bill for those clients and we have to create a separate report to Cisco to say that we're billing those clients. Anything they could do to make that billing process more seamless would be of great value. If they could almost automate it, so that it is something that links in with accounts packages to make the billing process neater, it would help promote the sale of it and make it more profitable to sell. If someone deploys AMP For Endpoints on a client, at the moment that process is very disjointed. We've got to do a check once a month to see how many deployments there are relative to last month and, if we had to add one, we not only have to bill an extra one but we also have to buy an extra one from Cisco. And all that is manual.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Cisco AMP for Endpoints for three years, maybe more.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is very good. We've had no issues with performance or things crashing. That aspect has all been very positive. When doing as much as these products are doing, it can create quite an overhead and take a toll on the performance of PCs, but we have had none of that kind of experience.

We are predominantly a Microsoft environment. I'm aware that it supports Mac, but I don't think we have any installations across Mac environments at the moment. From a Windows standpoint, it works very well. It hasn't caused instability. It hasn't affected performance in a negative way. All those things are really positive, given what it's actually doing.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Without any question it's scalable. We've got it on as few as two, and as many as 250 or so clients. We don't have any questions about scalability.

How are customer service and technical support?

I've not personally used any support around this solution. I don't think we have needed to from an implementation perspective. It's all gone smoothly.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used Sophos in the past. We're replacing it, so when the renewals come up we replace Sophos with AMP, wherever possible.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is quite simple. We needed a method of delivery and that's the hardest part. But the deployment and the actual tuning of it are relatively minimal, so that has been a good experience. We didn't have to mess about with performance tuning, whereas with other products we have to do quite a lot for excluding this, that, and the other directory, to make sure the performance is reasonable.

If it's a small environment, it's quick to set up because we've got closer management. But in bigger environments, we bump into the challenge — and this is not an AMP issue or an installation issue — of people who are away, or people who haven't restarted their machines. Those sorts of little things tend to be the things that are a little bit more of a pain to get the final installation done. But the rollout of AMP, per se, is quite straightforward. The setup time of AMP isn't an issue and it is quite acceptable. These types of problems would exist with whichever product was chosen.

In terms of an implementation strategy for this product, our security team is very comfortable with rolling it out. The sales process is that we define the client's needs, the number of devices that they intend to secure, and that goes to the security team to coordinate and roll out. That's a reasonably templated process now for us.

In our company, the security team is comprised of four people, and they are the people who primarily look after and manage the products. We also have a deployment team, another three or four people, who are the people that would ultimately push the client out to the various devices that need it.

What was our ROI?

Certainly, from a protection standpoint, we have seen ROI. It's doing what we want it to do and it's protecting us and the clients who have it installed. Neither they nor we have been compromised and that's the greatest testament of all.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We use the MSP model, so we're able to pay as we go. We report usage based on the actual usage, which is very handy. The old model of Cisco doing it was dated and archaic, and that goes for most of their products. The previous way they did it, which was that you bought something upfront for a certain period, was terrible because of the actual process of updating it. It wouldn't scale down and it was very hard to scale up. When you added users to the system, it wasn't easy to then add licenses to that particular agreement. It was really difficult, in fact; difficult to the point where we stopped selling it in that model, because it was just too problematic.

For example, if we had a user with 10 devices and they bought some more devices, so it went to, say, 15, getting an extra five licenses within their agreement was immensely hard. To me, the only way forward is the MSP model.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We looked at a number of different solutions: Carbon Black, Cylance, Sophos Intercept X and we liked the Cisco AMP solution over those products because it fit in neatly with the rest of the Cisco portfolio. We believe that the management of the various security products fit better with one manufacturer, rather than picking various manufacturers to try and manage a security solution.

The integration of Cisco Threat Response with Cisco Umbrella is getting a lot better. What we like, across the board, is that the solutions are backed by Talos, and Talos is the largest, independent, security-research and threat-hunting organization in the world. We like the fact that the protection is spread across the Cisco environment. That's where this set of products wins when compared to other vendors. It's not that other vendors, like Carbon Black and Cylance, aren't delivering good products. They're just not doing the whole suite. They're not providing the firewall, they're not providing the CASB solution like CloudLock. I'm not sure if they're doing DNS filtering yet; a lot of vendors are catching up on that. But effectively, when you get a known issue, Cisco have the ability to roll it out across a suite of products and therefore you get protection very quickly. So if you discover a problem in Cisco Umbrella, they can update that threat, where need be, in AMP. That's quite a unique selling point for Cisco.

What other advice do I have?

It's very simple to deploy, doesn't cause much in the way of management overhead, and does what it suggests. I would have no hesitation in recommending it. We obviously do, as we're selling it and have been using it for a number of years.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor. The reviewer's company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner.
Mark Krishnan
Associate Director - Infrastructure Engineering at AFT
Real User
Top 20
Great protection, excellent customer service, and an easy to understand UI

Pros and Cons

  • "The UI is simple and self-explanatory. Everything is easy to understand."
  • "Basically, they don't cover legacy OS or applications. That's the only issue we're concerned about"

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution as advanced threat protection. It is used to protect all endpoints, servers, etc. 

What is most valuable?

They're very good at what they do. As far as the product is, in its current state, I don't have any complaints at all right now. They do a quarterly review with us, just so they can let us know how many viruses or how much malware they've stopped, etc. Those features are quite good. They also go through the portal step-by-step to describe whatever they improved or tightened up. They will explain everything clearly and in a way that a customer can understand.

They do also ask for feedback, which is nice. They'll ask things like "The last time we changed this, how was your experience?" or "Did you get a lot of false positives?" or "Did you get any complaints?" etc. That's pretty good. Not many companies do that.

The UI is simple and self-explanatory. Everything is easy to understand.

So far, in the past three years, they've been absolutely great. They've been more proactive than the solution we had previously was. They even introduced new products in their line and they came back and told us that they could add that product to our current solution. At first, we added them, then we decided we had sufficient resources in house to manage it ourselves and removed it. They were great about the change. 

They've caught quite a lot of viruses and malware that have been sent through improper links, which is very reassuring. 

They report any network isolation that has been done on certain endpoints if they detect a malicious file or malware on the device that couldn't be cleaned by automation. They isolate it or us. The end-user can contact the service desk and say, "Hey, I'm not able to surf the internet. I can't do anything, so can you help me?" or we're able to look at the endpoint and see "oh, your PC is infected, that's why you aren't allowed on." It's protecting us well.

Even though the users are somewhere else, even when they're not at headquarters, we are able to remediate everything before we put them on the network again. Those network isolations are great when we detect high threat malicious items. Those are valuable tools that we appreciate.

What needs improvement?

If an operating system is stopped by support by the original vendor like Microsoft, or maybe Apple, within a few weeks, CrowdStrike will also decide they no longer support it, and they kind of move on. I understand their model. However, if we still have the OS, it's hard to keep it protected. So, for example, if Microsoft decides to stop supporting or patching a solution, Crowdstrike too will stop supporting it and making updates. It's still a useable product, it's just not getting updates or patches and therefore may be vulnerable. 

The result is that we can't guarantee we're going to be able to protect that hardware or operating system. We either have to upgrade to a newer platform, which sometimes is not possible because you have a legacy application. Whatever that constraint is, sometimes we're not able to move things. We still have to rely on other products to support that. That's the only quandary I have with them. 

Basically, they don't cover legacy OS or applications. That's the only issue we're concerned about.

When a file is infected or it detects a ransomware file network, when it does remediate, it should self-heal as Sophos does. That's a good feature to have, but I don't know enough pros and cons about that to kind of recommend that because if it is a false positive, that may be a problem. If it detected a valid file and if for some reason it decides, "Oh, this looks like an infection," and maybe it's not actually infected, and if it goes in and remediates it by replacing it with an older file, that may be a problem. However, I don't know, because I've never used that feature or heard anybody say that's a problem.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for about three years now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have two engineers that regularly watch everything. We all get alerts. We'll see if something gets isolated, or a user will tell us. We isolate the issues and work on them so nothing gets through the endpoints into the system. Within 30 minutes to an hour, an issue can be cleared.

It's therefore very stable. We're able to catch everything before it can get it. It's reliable for sure.

They're so pro-active there's very little intervention that we have to do on our end.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is easily scalable. A company shouldn't have any issues with that aspect of the solution.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is great. We've never had to contact them at all. Instead, they've always been proactive and reached out to us.

Their quarterly review manager will contact us every three months. They schedule it months ahead and we actually jump on a Zoom or WebEx meeting. They actually go through the improvements, how much detections they go through, all of our features, anything new that has been added, anything they're seeing out in the world in terms of threats, and where we need to tighten up the roles.

They would improve the sensitivity level or they will decrease the sensitivity level for some false positives. For example, they might say "Hey, we detect these, but they're not really a threat because this is just a Word document that's produced in an older format. It's not something that's malicious." Then they would decrease the sensitivity in certain areas, to eliminate the issue going forward. They always ask permission before tweaking anything. They will come to us and say, "this is what we're considering doing it and why we want to do it. Is that okay?" We usually agree to that and then they go ahead and do it.

It's just a phenomenal company. If they ever stopped the way they handle their customer service, then I would probably move on to a different company. So far they've been pretty good. For the last three years, they contacted us always and told us about every aspect of the solution. I don't think I missed a quarterly meeting so far with them due to the fact that it's all been so valuable.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Originally, we had Webroot. We used to get, every so often, a slew of viruses that would get through the cracks. I don't know if Webroot's definition didn't get updated in a timely manner or if they were just delayed in something, however, whatever it was, we used to get that intrusion quite a bit. Then we would patch it and we would have to remediate everything. It wasn't ideal. 

We were looking for a product that would be more proactive than a reactive solution, and after doing a bunch of research, we decided on CrowdStrike. 

How was the initial setup?

The solution's initial setup was very simple. The only thing we had an issue with is our network operation. Is a separate organization that manages it. We have a network operation that we used for 24 hour monitoring. They don't support CrowdStrike and they were not experts in it. They stood us we would have to manage it ourselves. In the beginning, we were kind of worried about it. However, after that initial stage, the simplicity of how to install it, configure it was like a breeze.

We manage the entire solution in house. For maintenance, we have me and two engineers, plus a second level of support. There are around five people altogether.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I'm not sure of the exact cost of the solution. That's a detail our finance department handles.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We did research on Cylance. We looked at Norton as well. We went through a bunch of products and we decided CrowdStrike was probably the most advanced threat protection at that time, which was three years ago. 

One of the products we were looking at is Sophos. The reason we were looking at Sophos is we were purchasing a backup and disaster recovery tool. In that tool, they had a built-in Sophos pack; they integrated Sophos in to protect the backup and replication and recovery. That way, if a backup had infections, for some reason, and they weren't picked up, and it got into our backup product, then Sophos could kick in and pick it up. It has automated remediation, meaning it reverses back the infection before infection if that makes sense.

Sophos has a self-healing technology built into it, which is an AI technology that they invented. We were looking at that because we thought that may be a better product. We were doing some homework on that and trying to figure out more about it. We're still in the process of purchasing a backup and recovery tool, so we're still doing our homework.

What other advice do I have?

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. The last time I checked, it was version 5.6. It is up-to-date, however. I get a report every so often saying, we've updated the sensors, or current version, etc. It's an auto-update and it does that. Whenever it's missing something or it couldn't reach an endpoint, the company will send me a report of that, saying these endpoints are not updated because we couldn't detect it on the network any longer.

The only advice I would say to others considering the solution is, if they have an unsupported operating system or legacy application, to look closely at CrowdStrike to see if the solution actually makes sense for them. This is due to the fact that they're not going to be able to support it. If they have thousands of servers and 20% of them are legacy applications, they may not want to think about CrowdStrike because the solution doesn't support legacy products. Other than that, I fully recommend CrowdStrike. The advanced threat protection they have has always been great.

I'd rate the solution a solid nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Roel Schreurs
System Engineer at Lyanthe
Real User
Top 20
The rollback worked flawlessly, saving me a couple of days of work

Pros and Cons

  • "The best part of the agent is that users can't remove or disable it, so endpoints will be safe. I can control it from the portal. I can see when it's updated and I can push updates from the portal. The greatness of SentinelOne is that our end-users don't see anything to do with the agents. Some of them don't even know it's on their laptops. And that's a good thing."
  • "It's good on Linux, and Windows is pretty good except that the Windows agents sometimes ask for a lot of resources on the endpoints. That could be in the fine-tuning for scanning. In Mac, they are complaining about the same problems, that it's using a lot of resources, but that could also be that we have to configure what it is scanning and what it should not scan. Currently it scans everything."

What is our primary use case?

It's for our regular laptop users, desktops, and our production servers. For the production servers we use it to make sure there is nothing coming from the outside. And for our regular users it works everywhere, so they can do everything with a laptop.

It's a cloud solution. We don't have a large business. We have a lot of services but we don't have many users. Everything is in the cloud and we have about 20 clients or 20 agents for normal users in the Netherlands and we have between 100 and 200 users in the Philippines. The rest is for server safety.

How has it helped my organization?

There is a lot of remote work at the moment and SentinelOne provides the safety I want. Everything goes outside now and the only control I have is Sentinel One, but it gives me enough control.

We have developers who do a lot on their laptops and sometimes they create problems. When that happens, SentinelOne is pretty fast with them. We have configured it to disconnect them from the network so we don't end up with more problems. Now, those developers know they have to contact our IT department if they want to fix it. The great thing there is that we know that when something happens on a laptop it is isolated.

We see what is mitigated and what is not. And when SentinelOne is in doubt, it asks the managers what to do with what it has found. When you have arranged that once, it will take care of it the next time. That's great.

Overall, it's effectiveness is 100 percent because we don't see many outbreaks anymore. Nobody's complaining about using their endpoints.

I've only done a rollback once and it worked flawlessly at that moment, but that was nine months or a year ago. It saved us a lot of time because the problem didn't spread over the network. It affected one machine because it was disconnected from the network. We then rolled it back and it was up and running again. If the rollback hadn't worked well, it would have meant a couple of days of additional work. If the outbreak had reached my network I would have had to clean everything. I was able to do everything from the portal. The connection with the manager was still there. We just had to click on two buttons and everything went.

Overall, it has helped to reduce our response time by about 20 percent. 

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the information it finds and what it is doing with that information. I can check if the info it sends is true. It's very clear. 

And if you configure it in the right way, it does a lot automatically. And that's what you want. You don't have to use it every day. I only log in to the SentinelOne portal once a day, just to check if there are alarms or the like and that's it. The rest is flawless.

Now that we've been using it for six months, SentinelOne knows what we want to have, what it has to do and it works that way. So it's very simple to use and that's pretty nice for the team. 

The best part of the agent is that users can't remove or disable it, so endpoints will be safe. I can control it from the portal. I can see when it's updated and I can push updates from the portal. The greatness of SentinelOne is that our end-users don't see anything to do with the agents. Some of them don't even know it's on their laptops. And that's a good thing.

What needs improvement?

It's good on Linux, and Windows is pretty good except that the Windows agents sometimes ask for a lot of resources on the endpoints. That could be in the fine-tuning of the scanning. In Mac, they are complaining about the same problems, that it's using a lot of resources, but that could also be that we have to configure what it is scanning and what it should not scan. Currently it scans everything.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working in my current company since April 1, so I have been using it here for six months. But I used it in another company in Eindhoven for a couple of years. That company was also a provider of SentinelOne and that's why I know how it works and what it does.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It has great stability. We haven't experienced any downtime or any kinds of bugs. If the users use the endpoints normally, nothing happens. We have some users who think they have to bypass SentinelOne, and then we sometimes have problems with those endpoints. But that's because of user action. It has nothing to do with SentinelOne.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We started with about 50 endpoints and now we have over 300. We haven't had a problem with it.

There will be more servers to watch over so our usage will be increasing. When the business grows, our IT will grow with it, and SentinelOne has to grow along with us.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have used their technical support and my experience with them has been very good. They are fast. They know what they're talking about. Those are two great things for support to have.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Before SentinelOne the company was using F-Secure. It started as an antivirus and then F-Secure also made a cloud-based endpoint protection solution from it, with a managed base and automation and checking for updates. It works with a database, which is not the way SentinelOne works. F-Secure is much cheaper.

They switched to SentinelOne because it is more for malware. F-Secure doesn't do anything in malware, just virus scanning.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup of SentinelOne is straightforward. It's fairly logical. Everything works in the way you think it has to work. It's pretty simple to work with. It's just a matter of installing the agent and go. It takes about two minutes. There is an agent client with token codes. You just install the token code in it and reboot your endpoint and it's working.

We have it installed on 305 endpoints. This is a work in progress. We didn't have all of those endpoints when SentinelOne came in. We've rolled out new endpoints. But, it doesn't take long for a machine to get an agent and to make a connection and to get updates. Once you are in the portal, you can update from there. And then, you only have to check if it's already there and if the agent is working.

If we push an update, within an hour everything is there. If they are all online it will go pretty fast.

What was our ROI?

It's working simply. You don't have to learn a lot to know what it does and how to work with it, and that saves time. And it gives you a solid solution for security.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

You have to look at the kinds of problems you can end up with and the fact that you want security against them, and then SentinelOne is not expensive. That's the way I would sell it. 

If you avoid having one outbreak a year, just one, then SentinelOne is worth the money. When you have that one outbreak and it spreads across your complete network, it means days of work are gone. For a complete environment like ours, with 300-plus users, it would be very expensive.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I've also used Sophos with customers. If you want to have a safe environment, then you have to work with tools like SentinelOne. F-Secure and Sophos work with databases for virus knowledge and that creates a delay.

Also, SentinelOne has the rollback which works flawlessly, whereas F-Secure and Sophos don't have that.

What other advice do I have?

My advice is start working with it. You're going to love it.

The biggest lesson I've learned from using SentinelOne is that security tools can be different. SentinelOne has taught me that you can do security in different ways. If it sounds expensive, I would not always say that it is expensive.

We are a very small business. We don't have somebody who specializes in security. Our IT is just three people who do everything. That makes it difficult to say we are going to focus on SentinelOne and try to use it completely. We put it into use for malware security and that's it. We only have a WatchGuard firewall on the front-end and that's it in terms of security on SentinelOne.

They are improving the management tools. They are getting better. The portal is functioning with more logic. Those are good improvements. It's user-friendly enough. People with low IT knowledge can work with it.

It's a very good program. It does what it says it does, and I'm very glad that I have it.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Amir Afkhami
Country IT Logistics & Facilities Manager at DHL
Real User
Top 10
Straightforward to use with good licensing options and doesn't consume too many resources

Pros and Cons

  • "As a Japanese company, it doesn't have any restrictions on usage in our country."
  • "We found an issue on the server-side. Sometimes, it slows down the servers if you install it on the SQL."

What is most valuable?

The software itself is very light. It doesn't consume many resources on the clients. 

The solution is pretty straightforward.

The licensing is very good.

As a Japanese company, it doesn't have any restrictions on usage in our country.

What needs improvement?

We found an issue on the server-side. Sometimes, it slows down the servers if you install it on the SQL. 

In some cases, the version on the server-side, when you install it on the server, doesn't update when the updates are available. For example, if the virus definitions are getting updated every two days, even though you push the updates to the servers from the management console of Trend Micro, it doesn't update the servers successfully.

On the client-side, on the computers, desktops, and laptops, when you do the restart, the new virus definition appears. We are now working with technical support to find out a way to upgrade or use a patch or do some modifications to get the servers updated frequently. Even though we push twice a week from the management console to the servers, still those definitions are not getting updated. We have quite a number of servers - almost 90 server installations - therefore, it's very hard to restart them just to get the virus definition updated. That's one of our biggest problems at the moment with Trend Micro.

Of course, when you do restart the server, it fetches the updates from the management server but that's not the way you can perfect the server. It should be noted that servers sometimes will not get used for a month or two. That's a challenge for us, keeping them updated. On top of that, the current vulnerabilities that you have up there on the Windows clients and the number of attacks registered, have increased.

It would be ideal if the solution could offer more control of computers from the management console in terms of, maybe, dealing with file-sharing. You should be able to block computers from sharing when they are on an external network. That's one of the things I was hoping they could catch in the new version that was released in July, but we didn't get that option.

In Symantec, for example, you can block file-sharing on your clients so they cannot share any data with anybody in the network if they connect to an external network. It makes things much safer.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for three years now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We haven't had any issues with the stability of the product. It doesn't crash, or freeze and there aren't bugs. It's actually very smart. We haven't had any issues with any of our clients or on our computers.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have scaled the solution slightly. The initial report was for 300 clients. We added on 100 more clients, and there was no problem. There was no performance degradation on the management console, and it was running fine. Therefore, I can say that it can scale pretty well.

We'll likely further increase usage. We were planning a review. We are actually in process of getting a quotation to get it upgraded to increase our license, in order to cover all of our distributors and partners. There are small companies, but they're not running any security protection on their clients. So every now and then they will have an infected machine that will infect their ERP system and the sales on their system will be impacted. Therefore, on behalf of them, we are purchasing the licenses for all their clients to ensure business continuity on their side. We are looking at almost 100 additional licenses.

How are customer service and technical support?

In our region, we get support from India. There are actually some problems with some latency in getting the support we need. We have to wait until Monday to get the support from them as, in our time zone, we work Saturday until Wednesday. The weekends are Thursdays and Fridays. However, they work from Monday to Friday. Therefore, we will have only three days of office hours overlap. If you want to get support from them, you need to follow their availability. It is also not around the clock. It's only business days in India.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have experience with Symantec Endpoint as well. I use both solutions.

How was the initial setup?

Initially, there was a challenge where we had to change our server and do the installation, however, that wasn't due to the functionality of Trend Micro. When you change the server you need to have all the clients' requirements related to the parameters of the new server. We did that through group policies and running small scripts in the stackable scripts of the group policy. That way, from the Windows side, certain clients get redirected to the new server.

However, when we wanted to upgrade it to the latest client version in July, we had to do them all manually. It pushes the installation to the client when it comes to implementers. Yet, in terms of changing the version, upgrading the version, or the agent on the client-side, sometimes you need to do that manually. We have 400 clients, and we needed to load them one-by-one. We had to manually remove the old version and install the new version.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

If I'm not mistaken, for three years, for 400 licenses, we paid nearly 15,000 euros. We don't have any additional costs that we have to pay on top of that.

What other advice do I have?

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with Trend Micro.

Trend Micro may be planning to launch a new product called Apex or Alex in January. However, right now, we are using the most current version of the solution which was launched in July. This version is compatible with Windows 10.

We actually waited for this release to happen due to the fact that the previous versions of Trend Micro were not compatible with the latest Windows so we couldn't upgrade our Windows clients. We waited nearly three months, or maybe two months, so we would be able to upgrade our clients' Windows builds to the latest version, and ensure everything was compatible.

We have a management server that manages the licenses and the number of computers and the deployment and management of computers.

It companies are considering the solution, it's a good idea to do a virtual benchmark. I wasn't sure that Trend Micro was a good solution, so I ran a benchmark. I had prior experience with Symantec Endpoint Protection, and also Panda software- the Panda Security Cloud Version. BI found that Trend Micro was very reliable in terms of when we did the benchmark on the software, on the licenses, on the management side, and the admin solution overhead. 

Considering the trade sanctions and all the complications we have in Iran, I found Trend Micro to be compatible with those sanctions as well, as it's a Japanese company and they are not using any technology developed in U.S. It was a sanction-compliant solution as well. 

In terms of the cost, you could buy the license for three years or five years. It was almost hassle-free to get the new party license for three years. You don't need to pay for any license renewal every year. 

It's very straightforward and usable. In terms of administration, the liability is better than Panda, Sophos, and Symantec. With Symantec, it's a U.S. product, therefore we couldn't use it in Iran anyway.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. However, with the embargo, there isn't as much competition in the market right now. We don't have too many options.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
MD
Azure Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Integrates well with Microsoft technologies, but needs direct integration for USB control

Pros and Cons

  • "It depends on the licensing. Most of the customers have got at least a 365 E3 license, and they can use most of the features of Windows 10 Defender. So, anyone who has got an enterprise license can start using those features. Some of the customers have got E5 licenses, and they can use all advanced features. Customers with E5 licenses use the advanced site protection (ATP) features and web content filtering without going via a proxy, which gives the benefit of replacing the proxy. They can get the benefit of MCAS and integration with Intune and the endpoint manager. It is a kind of single platform for all 365 technologies. It helps customers in managing everything through a unified portal."
  • "I would like Microsoft to have some kind of direct integration for USB controls. They have GPO and other controls to control the access of the USB drives on devices, but if there is something that can be directly implemented into the portal, it would be good. There should be a way to control via a cloud portal or something like that in a dynamic way. USB control for data exfiltration would be a good feature to implement. Currently, there are ways to do it, but it involves too many different things. You have to implement it via GPOs and other stuff, and then you move or copy those big files via Defender ATP. If there is a simple way of implementing those features, it would be great."

What is our primary use case?

Our clients use it for antivirus and anti-malware purposes.

What is most valuable?

It depends on the licensing. Most of the customers have got at least a 365 E3 license, and they can use most of the features of Windows 10 Defender. So, anyone who has got an enterprise license can start using those features. Some of the customers have got E5 licenses, and they can use all advanced features. Customers with E5 licenses use the advanced site protection (ATP) features and web content filtering without going via a proxy, which gives the benefit of replacing the proxy. They can get the benefit of MCAS and integration with Intune and the endpoint manager. It is a kind of single platform for all 365 technologies. It helps customers in managing everything through a unified portal.

Normally, we implement the attack surface reduction (ASR) rules and exploit protections. We also use Microsoft Defender Application Guard and ad blocker. Instead of using the application control list, we use the ad blocker at most of the places.

What needs improvement?

What I've heard from the customers is that the anti-malware engine is not up to date. So, sometimes, it may not detect such threats. I, however, haven't got any data to show for this.

Its licensing can be better. Currently, customers with the E3 license cannot use many features, and they would like those features to be available. With Windows 10 E5, Microsoft is phasing out all the functionality. They have also made a lot of changes recently where you can also buy add-ons for Defender ATP, but for Office 365, ADT, and other stuff, you still require E5 licensing. If they can improve its licensing, it would definitely be helpful in implementing the features from the security point of view. E5 definitely has more features from the security point of view.

I would like Microsoft to have some kind of direct integration for USB controls. They have GPO and other controls to control the access of the USB drives on devices, but if there is something that can be directly implemented into the portal, it would be good. There should be a way to control via a cloud portal or something like that in a dynamic way. USB control for data exfiltration would be a good feature to implement. Currently, there are ways to do it, but it involves too many different things. You have to implement it via GPOs and other stuff, and then you move or copy those big files via Defender ATP. If there is a simple way of implementing those features, it would be great.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been recommending Defender to customers for Windows 10 and helping them in implementing it for two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is okay in terms of stability. I haven't seen any issues. Even if you go for a third-party vendor as your primary anti-malware software, you can get the benefit of Defender in a passive mode. 

I am an Azure engineer, and I work with an architect to design the solutions. I'm not a security person, and I don't know whether it catches all the new malware that comes into the IT world, and how quickly it gets updated because it is not my area of work as I'm not an SEC OP admin. I have read a few articles mentioning that the engine might only be 80% or 90% up to date. Obviously, no engine is 100% up to date, but it is still a little bit behind some of the third-party vendors. 

How are customer service and technical support?

We haven't used their support much, but one of my colleagues has had some problems, and I think he didn't get good support from Microsoft. So, obviously, it depends on what kind of support engineer you have been assigned. Sometimes, it can be difficult. It is not only applicable to Defender; it could be with any of the products.

How was the initial setup?

While implementing the ASR rules and other things, if you don't put it in the audit mode and don't do proper discovery, then it can definitely break lots of applications. You need to adhere to the implementation guidelines for ASR rules. So, proper analysis definitely needs to be done before implementing those rules because it can affect the business functionality.

Its deployment can take from few weeks to months depending on the size of the organization. In terms of the implementation strategy, we start with the pilot key users, and we deploy those policies. We also deploy ASR rules and other exploit protection rules in the audit mode, instead of directly enabling them. We then monitor the resources in terms of what can be blocked or what can get impacted by those rules. After that, we work with the users to implement it and see whether it breaks anything. If it breaks, then we look at the solutions. After we are happy with all those solutions and we know that enabling it won't break anything on a business side, we just roll it out.

What was our ROI?

Our clients are definitely seeing an ROI. Some of the clients have already got the licenses, and they can use lots of features of their Defender ATP. They are basically saving the cost of not going with a third-party solution.

Some of the clients who already had another third-party solution are also moving to Defender ATP because they already have the licenses, and they can save the cost on those. One of our clients is using ESET. They have the ESET standard version, so they are not getting any of the other features. They already have an E5 license to use all Defender ATP features. So, obviously, it would be beneficial for them to go with Defender ATP.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We did a little bit of comparison with Sophos. Sophos also offers cloud and network protection, but it would be an extra cost to buy it if you already have a license of Defender ATP. With Sophos, the USB features are a part of the cloud solution. So, you can configure USB restrictions and other things in the Sophos portal. With Defender, you will have to implement the USB security features via GPO or something else.

What other advice do I have?

I would definitely recommend others to go with Defender ATP if they have got the licenses because it can give them a wide range of security controls. It is integrated with Office portals and Microsoft monitoring systems, so they get the sensors from different places. We haven't come across any security threats yet. From the point of view of its theory, implementation, and architecture, Defender ATP and other ATP integrations would definitely help customers in controlling their organization and implementing the best security rules and policies.

It hasn't affected the user experience much for our customers. Customers only see the notification pop up saying that Defender hasn't found anything and things like that.

I would rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a seven out of 10.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Flag as inappropriate
Get our free report covering Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Kaspersky, and other competitors of Sophos Intercept X. Updated: November 2021.
554,382 professionals have used our research since 2012.