Cisco Secure Endpoint (formerly Cisco AMP) vs Mimecast Secure Email Gateway

• Identifies malware, malicious processes/services and other events well
• Great automated actions features such as host isolation
• Detailed threat visibility such as file trajectory
• Integration with other Cisco suite of security products
• Great value
• Low false positive rate
• Lightweight agent
• Variety of reporting
• Stable agent

Read full review

• Email retention - convenience for the end-users to access older messages even if they've deleted them from Outlook
• SPAM management - allows us to prevent SPAM and Phishing attacks with custom policies that fit our organizational needs
• URL protection - allows incoming emails with a URL to be scanned and protects our end-users from clicking on malicious URLs

Read full review

• Event search function. The searching is very limited and allows for poor filtering choices.
• Slowness. The web GUI is far slower than most Cisco products.
• Sync issues. When attempting to move a device from one group to another or start isolation on a device, there is a sizable delay in communication with the device that can cause operations to fail.

Read full review

• The Admin Management console is absurdly complicated. For every first time we wanted to setup we've had to call their support for assistance. Support is quick and fantastic but it's so difficult to do anything yourself. They seem to have gone out of their way to call features unique things instead of using standard language from other providers so you as an IT professional know what you're looking for to setup.
• They have lots of KB articles, which their support will point you to. They are written on the most basic level and don't actually provide the help you need. For example, the KB page will tell you the list of options on the page... but not actually tell you what you do, why you might use them, or define their terminology.
• Their email threat management system has several nice features. One of the features available is that it will rewrite links in emails so that users click the link and it sandboxes the link, testing it on their server space and the user sees it there. This means the actual link in the email gets changed to the address of one of their servers. As a law firm, the EXACT LINKS are important to maintain in our communications and editing actual data from our clients to point to a Mimecast server is an unacceptable practice. I wish they had an alternative that did not edit the link itself on the page.

Read full review

• AMP has been able to catch some serious infections and stop them from doing huge damage in our environment.
• The overall cost of AMP vs the cost of not having this protection and getting hit with malware, or other nefarious damage to your environment is well worth the money.

Read full review

• Positive - It's hard to put a dollar amount on prevention, but we have been saved many times by the email and URL security filter. Users have clicked on links which were blocked by Mimecast. We have avoided costly ransomware and virus situations many times because of this.
• Cost savings - Mimecast has worked with us to set reasonable prices, especially because we are a non-profit. At the time of purchase they were significantly cheaper than their closest competitor (Proofpoint).
• Subscription cost. This is a subscription product so overall it can be more expensive than an on-premise solution. However we feel that the cost was well worth the security benefits.

Read full review