Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Secure Endpoint vs Webroot Business Endpoint Protection comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Secure Endpoint
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
13th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (13th), Cisco Security Portfolio (6th)
Webroot Business Endpoint P...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
40th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cisco Secure Endpoint is 1.5%, down from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is 0.7%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Mark Broughton - PeerSpot reviewer
Tighter integration with Umbrella and Firepower gave us eye-opening information
We were using a third-party help desk. One of the ways that they were fixing problems was to delete the client and then add the client back if there was an issue where the client had stopped communicating. Any improvement in the client communicating back to the server would be good, particularly for machines that are offline for a couple of weeks. A lot of our guys were working on a rotation where the machine might be offline for that long. They were also terrible about rebooting their machines, so those network connections didn't necessarily get refreshed. So, anything that could improve that communication would be good. Also, an easier way to do deduplication of machines, or be alerted to the fact that there's more than one instance of a machine, would be useful. If you could say, "Okay, we've got these two machines. This one says it's not reporting and this one says it's been reporting. Obviously, somebody did a reinstall," it would help. That way you could get a more accurate device count, so you're not having an inflated number. Not that Cisco was going to come down on you and say, "Oh, you're using too many licenses," right away. But to have a much more accurate license usage count by being able to better dedupe the records would be good. I also sent over a couple of other ideas to our technical rep. A lot of that had to do with the reporting options. It would be really nice to be able to do a lot more in the reporting. You can't really drill down into the reports that are there. The reporting and the need for the documentation to be updated and current would be my two biggest areas of complaint. Also, there was one section when I was playing with the automation where it was asking for the endpoint type rather than the machine name. If I could have just put in the machine name, that would have been great. So there are some opportunities, when it comes to searching, to have more options. If I wanted to search, for example, by a Mac address because, for some reason, I thought there was a duplication and I didn't have the machine name, how could I pull it up with the Mac address? When you're getting to that level, you're really starting to get into the ticky tacky. I would definitely put the reporting and documentation way ahead of that.
Rick Cassel - PeerSpot reviewer
Lightweight and not hard to set up however, does not offer good reporting
We've had a couple of events both this year and last year where it just didn't seem to catch ransomware, which is impossible to do if someone has hands-on with the system. There were some things that they had or used to have or don't have that I still haven't figured out called journaling. And it was supposed to be a way to roll back changes that were made. However, they're telling me they don't have that. That's not in the system. It’s my understanding that it doesn’t actually scan any files at all. They just look at their database of files they've scanned previously, and either it matches or doesn't. That might be where the shortcoming is, is that it just can't stay up-to-date fast enough to stop new things that are coming in. It's an after-the-fact anti-virus. It doesn't do anything proactive. The virus has to hit the machine before it detects it. There is one thing that is deplorable with the product that I would change as soon as I found a better one. However, the reports are worthless. You go and look at a scan report and cannot get a log of machines. I can log into a console and see the files were scanned every day at 2:00 AM, and they all passed green or something was detected and removed. However, you have to go to the console. I don't have anything that I can send to my client on reports. What they give you is a bunch of bar graphs with no details. You can't drill down. It'll say two infections. However, it doesn't tell you what machines. You've just really got several different reports, and they're all just a bunch of graphs and wasted paper. There's nothing really substantial. The reports that I can use for client-facing, once a month, to say, "Here, we scanned all these workstations. Here are our results," don’t exist. They've got fake reports. I've screamed about that for years, and they just won't do anything. Therefore, I created my own little up-to-date or not ask fail-type report. I send that to them in place of a report directly from a product.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Device Trajectory is one of the most valuable features. We're able to dig in and really understand how things came to be and where to focus our efforts."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its technical support."
"There are several valuable features including strong prevention and exceptional reporting capabilities."
"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."
"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 tool's most valuable feature is its integration with other Cisco products, such as switches and routers. This integration allows comprehensive coverage of security parameters across the customer's entire network. Customers find it easier to manage because they already know Cisco products. The cloud-based management is another valuable feature, enabling customers to manage their security from anywhere with an internet connection."
"Secure Endpoint has decreased our time to remediate by providing the tools and the integrations we need so we can quickly look across our entire network, look for those threats, and actually make good decisions."
"The most valuable feature at this moment is that Cisco AMP or Cisco Secure Endpoint solution is delivering a lot of things, and I always say to a lot of customers that if we didn't have Cisco AMP, we probably would have had ransomware somewhere. So, it's protecting us very well from a lot of hackers, malware, and especially ransomware."
"They have a lot of features integrated from way back, which shows that the product developers know exactly what they're doing."
"It is an easy-to-use and easy-to-configure product."
"The ease of use of the centralized admin console is its best asset."
"The feature we found most valuable is the AI functionality for maintaining endpoint security. This is very powerful."
"The main reason we had Webroot is that it was cost-effective for our clients."
"There aren't any features that really stand out — I just want it to keep malware out of my system. To date, I haven't had any malware in my system."
"Its ease of installation is valuable. It has been a low-resource tool and the continuous updates in the past have made it attractive from the standpoint of the trust level on the protection."
"Low performance requirements."
 

Cons

"Previously, there were options to uninstall the agent without a password if you had admin access, and this could be improved."
"The pricing policy could be more competitive, similar to Cisco's offerings."
"I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."
"...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."
"The thing I hate the most, which they have not fixed, is when it creates duplicate entries within a console. If you have a computer and you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, or you upgrade your agent from version 6 to 7, it creates a new instance in there instead of updating the information. Instead of paying a license for one computer, I have to license two computers until I manually go in, search for all the duplicate entries, and clean them out myself."
"The technical support is very slow."
"In the next release, I would for it to have back up abilities. I would like the ability to go back to a point in time to when my PC was uninfected and to the moment of when the infection happened."
"An easier way to do deduplication of machines, or be alerted to the fact that there's more than one instance of a machine, would be useful... That way you could get a more accurate device count, so you're not having an inflated number."
"Webroot Business Endpoint Protection needs to improve its ability to detect threats."
"It doesn't do anything proactive. The virus has to hit the machine before it detects it."
"There needs to be more advanced analytics. It would make it a more powerful antivirus solution within the marketplace."
"I want Webroot to be easier to use and set up. It is not very intuitive."
"They should provide more information on the type of cyber attacks."
"Webroot Business Endpoint Protection needs to focus on how they can widen their area of scope by not just being an antivirus tool anymore. The shortcoming in the customization area of the tool needs improvement."
"We need to have a stronger defense against CryptoLock and other attackers."
"Reporting system could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cisco Secure Endpoint is not too expensive and it's not cheap. It's quite fair."
"We had faced some license issues, but it has been improved. At the beginning of the implementation, we faced a lot of licensing issues, but now, we have EA licensing, which gives us an opportunity to grow."
"It is an expensive solution."
"My company does make annual payments towards the licensing costs of the solution. Cisco Secure Endpoint is a little bit expensive."
"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."
"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."
"Licensing fees are on a yearly basis and I am happy with the pricing."
"The solution is highly affordable; I believe we pay $2 or $3 per endpoint. It's significantly cheaper than the competitors on the market."
"We evaluate other options using multiple choices, best value, management and functionality."
"I rate the product's pricing a three on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. There are no costs in addition to the product's standard licensing fees."
"Work on a price tier plan."
"I can't recall the exact pricing, but I believe there is a monthly fee of $20-30 per user."
"If you purchase for clients, then you are the managing billing entity. It's better to either get a monthly subscription check from your clients, or to prepay for the year (so as to not keep cash in reserve to pay the bill each month) IMHO."
"Its cost is not much per month. Our price is a couple of bucks a user."
"Webroot is less expensive than SentinelOne."
"The solution is very cost-effective."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
19%
Real Estate/Law Firm
13%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco Secure Endpoint?
The product's initial setup phase was very simple.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Secure Endpoint?
I am not entirely sure about the exact licensing cost. It ranges from 2,000 to 2,500 INR annually.
What needs improvement with Cisco Secure Endpoint?
Previously, there were options to uninstall the agent without a password if you had admin access, and this could be improved. It may require a password for uninstalling clients, which would be help...
What do you like most about Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
I haven't observed any of the instabilities in the solution. It is a stable solution.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is probably on the cheaper side, so I would rate their pricing a one or a two out of ten.
What needs improvement with Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
Webroot Business Endpoint Protection needs to improve its ability to detect threats. It does not do what it's advertised to do. Real-time threat detection also doesn't work as it should.
 

Also Known As

Cisco AMP for Endpoints
Webroot SecureAnywhere Business Endpoint Protection
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Heritage Bank, Mobile County Schools, NHL University, Thunder Bay Regional, Yokogawa Electric, Sam Houston State University, First Financial Bank
Mytech Partners
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Webroot Business Endpoint Protection and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.