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

• lightweight connector
• great integration with other security products
• highly effective
• will also alert for vulnerable software being used on your systems

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

• Sometimes during whitelisting, other files from security tools get isolated even if it's not user intended.
• Re-syncing policies also take some time, albeit in a straightforward process.
• As with all security software, false-positives are still detected.
• Hoping that once the library is expanded further, the false positives will be fewer.

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

• HAMP has allowed the team to focus on value added activities instead of constant cleanup of workstations and servers.
• AMP is probably not the most cost effective solution, but is very good at protecting your systems.

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