Cisco Secure Email Reviews

I use the solution for spam filtering.

The solution works well. Cisco claims to have the biggest threat intelligence database in the world. We trust them because they are enterprise-level products. If we are protected, then it is working well. I am satisfied with the overall performance of the solution.

The management features of the product are not up to date. It does not match the features provided by the new vendors in the market. The solution does not offer features to protect workloads on the cloud.

My organization has been using the solution for the last 20 years.

Support is not good. The support team provides a slow response. I rate the support team a six or seven out of ten.

Neutral

We pay at least 25% more for Cisco Secure Email than Trend Micro. Cisco’s support is better than that of Trend Micro.

The solution is expensive. Every additional workload or feature has an additional cost. The product should provide a single bundle for protecting both on-premises and cloud solutions. We do not have to pay for support.

We do not have the resources to review the product technically. It is very difficult to analyze these weaknesses. As an end user, we need something to defend us and block threats. If any product works with 95% efficiency, we can say that it works well. Email protection is very critical. No one should take risks.

Cloud protection apps are very critical to the business. They should be easy to configure and easy to manage. These days, there are hundreds of products available. It's very difficult to find a good solution. Just because a tool is popular, it does not mean that it will always be the best solution. The backend technique is very important. Machine learning, artificial intelligence, and threat intelligence are very important.

If we have more knowledge, we can have more protection. If we don't have the knowledge, we can't. The solution does not offer a complete bundle for on-premise and cloud protection. If we need more features, they charge us more. They do not offer all features together.

Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We are an internet service provider with a few hundred customers. All our customers need a reliable solution for email security and this solution from Cisco helps us to implement the customers' needs and to offer the security the customers want.

We are using all the appliances on premises. They are virtual appliances only. We are not using the cloud because we own our data center.

With Talos threat intelligence we are protected. I cannot guarantee, 100 percent, that the protection will always be there because something new can appear on the market, something that Talos doesn't know, but we are confident that Talos assures us of all the security we need. We are happy to be using it.

We have customers who was looking at our product catalog, what we offer, and they said, "I don't need the email security appliance because at my company things are secure without that." The prices are quite expensive for the security appliance and the customer wanted to manage his business without it. After some weeks, we get a feedback from the same customer that the malware is already in his company and now all the data are compromised." After that, the customer chose to buy this email security appliance because his security was as important as anything else. We have more examples like that, that have happened in the last year. You are never secure without some solution from Cisco.

When it comes to preventing downtime, the Cisco Security Email appliance protects our customers so that they don't lose their information and can continue working. I am sure that many of our customers have been attacked with ransomware and with malware and this solution protects them.

• We are using Advanced Malware Protection since a few years and It works very well. 
• Our customers are safe now using the AMP sandboxing solution. 
• The appliance has more security such as SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and encryption. 

There are a lot of security features that we can implement.

All the appliances are connected with Cisco Talos and they check, in real time, with Cisco Talos. AMP is using Cisco Talos, and we have other products from Cisco, such as web security and AMP for Endpoints, that are using Cisco Talos too. Talos is a very important tool that speaks with all Cisco products.

We have been struggling in the last month with Cisco encryption and with the S/MIME encryption. I don't know if it is an issue on our side or if these features of the solution are not working very well. The documentation is good but I'm not sure if the functionality in these areas of the solution is implemented very well. We are evaluating the situation.

I've been using Cisco Secure Email for between eight and 10 years.

The stability of the solution has made a very good impression. In the last two or three versions, I haven't found bugs or anything that could affect the stability.

The scalability has been fine so far. We are very happy to use the cluster functionality in the ESA. 

The same type of clustering in the ESA has not been implemented for Cisco web security and we have been waiting for years for that functionality for the web security. But in the Secure Email it's working very well and we are happy with it.

Sometimes the customer support for Germany is good and sometimes it's very bad. We have over 200 technicians and we have been working with Cisco products for 15 to 20 years. We have a lot of knowledge. If someone in customer support knows less than us, it is difficult to get them to understand what we are looking for or what our needs are. Sometimes we need to escalate, to ask for another technician who can help us. There are times when it takes days or weeks until we receive good customer support from Cisco or from this company that supports Cisco. And when there is an issue for our customer, a few days or a few weeks could result in a disaster.

I have deployed some 100 email security appliances, so from my side the deployment is very intuitive and simple. We don't have difficulty deploying it in our data center.

We create our own template in our virtual environment, and from this template we are deploying further security measures. To deploy it virtually takes about 30 minutes and after that the customization for our customer could take from half an hour to a few hours, depending on how complex it is.

We have five to 10 people involved in deployment of the solution. The people who work with it are technicians, the system administrators, administrators, and people in IT SecOps.

We tested only two other solutions, the Trend Micro product and the Check Point product, so I can't compare Cisco with all the solutions out there, but it's all the solution we need. For phishing and malware it's doing a good job.

We didn't like the instability with Trend Micro. Check Point was complicated to use; it was a very complex system. The Cisco system is intuitive, simple to use and simple to understand. I am a technician in our company, so I don't know which solution is cheap or which is expensive. But for the functionality we stay with Cisco because Cisco is our partner and this email appliance can connect with other Cisco products. They work together and that gives us confidence in using Cisco Secure Email.

When it comes to preventing phishing and business-email compromise, in the last year the efficacy has been improved. For four or five years this solution didn't work as well, but last year and this year we have seen that with every new version, the efficacy is there, and the solution is working better and better. Our customers are happy to use it. It has made a great impression in this area.

Similarly, regarding spam, malware, and ransomware, in the last few years the solution was not so good but there was not so much malware. However, these days, the email solution from Cisco does a real good job of preventing malware.

About half of our customers use Office 365. A lot of customers, if they are migrating to Office 365 from an on-premises Exchange server, choose to increase their security with Cisco. The combination of Cisco Secure Email and Office 365 is working very well. Since this migration to Office 365 started, over the last two to three years, we have had no complaints from our customers.

We have trusted Cisco's email security for eight or nine years and we are going to use it in the future. We recommended it to our customers. We are happy with how it works, with the stability, features, and functions.

We are using it as our email firewall. It's our first line of email defense.

Overall, the ease of migration to Cisco's cloud email security from the on-prem solution was a positive experience. We are very happy with the change. It makes security easy. The cloud solution is doing a great job. We are stopping more emails, and in a better way, than we did in the past. It's also not stopping as many good emails, but I think this is because Talos has gotten better, rather than something to do with the cloud technology. But the numbers over the past year are significantly better compared to the past.

We like 

• AMP
• Threat Grid
• Sandboxing

The spam protection is also very good and the solution is very configurable. It has enabled us to configure some specific filters to stop emails that general configurations didn't stop. 

It's a powerful solution. It can analyze a lot of emails simultaneously, with no problems in terms of capacity or system load. It seems that machines on the cloud are more powerful than the ones that we had, in the legacy solution, on-premises.

They can do it better with web links, with the URLs. They have a technology called Outbreak but it doesn't work as well as we would like. It does have a new feature called Cloud URL Analysis, but we can see enough information about detection, information that helps us to properly configure the technology.

We have been using the cloud solution for one year, but before that we were using it on-premises for three years.

It's very stable. We haven't had any issues with the stability. It hasn't gone down, and it has managed the flow of our email volume really well.

The technical support is excellent. They are proactive. They are monitoring things and helping us every step of the way. The technical support is at an excellent level.

The migration to the cloud email security was complex because we have a lot of customization. We needed to reevaluate some of the policies that we were applying via the email security. But technically we had more difficulty previously because we didn't have the premium support. We had to read a lot of documentation and experiment. Now, with the premier support, it's easier.

We re-created everything in the cloud solution. We re-evaluated everything when we migrated. There were some things we didn't migrate, while some new things were created.

It took us nearly one year for all the integrations and the migration to be complete, from the initial evaluation of the new product to the end of the migration to CSE, when it assumed all the email traffic for our organization. We didn't have any particular problems with downtime during the migration. That time includes analyzing, configuring, and improving things in production.

Our team that works directly with Secure Email consists of five people who are configuring the tool.

We used consulting from Cisco the whole time during our migration. With the premium support we now have one person who knows our configuration, our needs, and who can help us more than in the past when we didn't have that level of support.

ROI is difficult to determine. We think we have seen ROI, but we need to have an incident to evaluate whether the investment has really paid off. But no incidents means it's a good investment.

We haven't saved money by moving from on-prem to the cloud email security because we acquired the premium support. But we are happy with it, as they help us not only with issues that have happened, but also with configuration and with learning the technology. This is a very important factor, which we value.

Cisco Secure Email and the support are priced well. It's not cheap, but there are other solutions that offer less and cost so much. For example, Microsoft is more expensive than Cisco.

We know there are some solutions that have a higher level of protection for email, but we're very happy with the price of this one and with the way it is working.

We have Microsoft email security too, but not as the first line of defense. Microsoft's email security has its advantages but it is less secure, less configurable, and less powerful than Cisco's solution.

It's a great solution for big enterprises that need a higher level of security than is offered by Microsoft solutions. Other solutions are targeted at smaller enterprises, that are without a security administrator and without people monitoring and supervising the technology. But for a big enterprise, Cisco Secure Email is a great option.

We have integrated the solution with SecureX and Threat Grid, and we already had Talos, of course. The Sandboxing is needed, it's a basic functionality for us. As for the rest of the integrations, they are less important. We integrate with some external feeds, but Talos is good enough for the technology not to need additional feeds.

When migrating from on-prem to the cloud email security, the interfaces are basically the same. The new interface was developed only for the cloud solution, but the classic interface, when it comes to the configuration of the machine, is basically the same for both the on-premises and cloud solutions.

Overall, it's a very configurable technology. We think it has all the weapons we need to fight against threats.

The big use case is filtering inbound messages for spam and malicious messages. Obviously, it's a huge issue for everyone to keep as much of that stuff out as possible.

Users are getting a lot fewer malicious and nuisance messages. When we moved to the cloud product, we added in a service for graymail unsubscribe which we didn't have before. That makes it very easy for people to safely unsubscribe from mailing lists, especially the sort that they have been added to without knowing what the company is. That has reduced the amount of time users waste going through that process and the amount of time IT has to spend responding to questions about what they can do about things like that. In general, it's enabled us to spend less time addressing user issues regarding junk mail. It has also been better about not blocking legitimate messages, which again comes down to saving time for both users and IT.

The migration from the on-prem email security to its cloud email security saved us money, versus where we would have been if we had kept the on-prem with them. Versus the Microsoft service, it was basically a wash. But compared to Cisco's on-prem service, the cost is the same, but you don't have to pay for the hardware and you don't have to maintain the system, as far as upgrades and hardware failures are concerned. It is cheaper to operate on their cloud service than it is to operate with their on-prem service. The hardware savings are from whatever level of hardware we ended up not having to buy. If we had stayed on-prem with it, we would have needed to buy two new appliances that year, appliances which would have cost $10,000 or $12,000. I don't have a good figure on how much manpower we spent maintaining upgrades with the on-prem. It wasn't huge, but we probably save an hour a month, on average, on maintenance.

For maintenance, it depends on what's going on, but there may be a few hours a month for reviewing, reporting, and for addressing any user issues. User issues mainly revolve around things like, "Okay, the user hasn't gotten an email from so-and-so. Check and see whether or not they've got it." But as far as actually maintaining it, to ensure it keeps functioning, it's pretty minimal; maybe an hour a month. The people who handle the maintenance are from our infrastructure group, which is a combination of systems and network functions.

A few of the big features are ones that we found that we missed terribly when we moved over to Microsoft. One of them is simply the logging that they have in the reporting. For example, if I wanted to get logs about emails since last week, from a certain address, with native Office 365 I would have to submit the search requests and I would get an email a few hours later with the results. With Cisco, it's not only a lot more detailed information, but it's nearly instantaneous. So if you have to do any sort of research into an issue, whether it's security or something is missing, it makes that much less labor intensive.

The filtering is definitely better at catching both spam and malicious messages, and there's a lot of extremely granular ability for setting up rules. You can do it the way you want to. The Microsoft solution tends to be pretty limited in how it allows some of that to be done. It forces you into doing it a certain way, even if it's not good for your business process.

The interface is dated. It has looked pretty much the same for 15 years or so. It would be helpful to be able to do everything from one spot. The centralized quarantine and reporting are completely separate from policy administration.

We used it consistently from 2007 to the beginning of 2020, and when we went off of it, it was about three months before we started back up with the cloud option.

We haven't had any stability issues with it. It seems to be good.

I haven't seen any scalability issues. I'm not quite sure how scaling would be handled if we had a truly immense increase, but I haven't seen any challenges with it. We're on the small side so we may not be a good example.

We don't really intend to change our usage much. We use it for all of our inbound and outbound email.

I haven't talked with their technical support much in the last few years. The only issue I've had was a support case for getting command-line access set up. That was fine, but there was virtually no contact about it.

We have had two runs with Cisco Secure Email. We initially ran it on-prem and that started in 2007. It was the same year, or a little bit before, Cisco bought the old IronPort product. And last year, we initially ended up dropping the on-prem, when we were moving into Office 365. Although we were happy with it, the thought was, "Okay, if we move everything to Office 365, Microsoft can handle that. We have their full-blown mail filtering products." We thought it would probably save us some workload, not having an extra product to deal with.

The intent was that we were going to consolidate to a single product when we moved to the cloud for email, and we found out that it didn't work as well as we had expected. We didn't do a direct conversion from the on-prem to the cloud solution. There were a couple of months between it during which we tried the Microsoft option.

We then found out that they were not nearly as good as one would expect from a market leader in corporate email. I then contacted Cisco about what it would cost to do it in the cloud with their products. I was rather surprised to find out that they don't charge anything more to host it, than they do to have you run it on your own equipment. We ended up jumping back into it with their hosted solution, without really planning to. When the cost came back and was as attractive as it was, we decided, "Okay, this Microsoft filtering is not working out. Let's go back to Cisco." We went back to it and it's been working really well, better than it did when it was on-prem, because we don't have to maintain as much of it.

We had been using encryption on Cisco before, but we did end up leaving that with Microsoft, just because it integrates with their Outlook browser better. I'm at something of a toss-up on which one I prefer. Because the Microsoft solution integrates directly with the Outlook client, it is a bit easier for users to manage. But the encryption on it seems to work fairly decently, although it has the same problem that all of them do. There are tons of standards for that. Everyone has their own. It would be great if there was some sort of multi-vendor standard for that but, without it, we moved it over to the Microsoft solution and that seemed that to be a little easier for users.

Because we had those few months in between, we didn't qualify for a license transfer. We had let the initial service lapse and then we brought on the cloud service.

It ended up being a really easy setup for the Cisco cloud product. I was pleasantly surprised how much was already ready for you out-of-the-box.

I found the setup to be straightforward, as someone who was familiar with the management environments. If I had not had the experience with it, there would have been areas that could use more documentation to explain what different sections of the product do. But I had been using it for a long time, so that was not an issue. But I could see that is an area they could put more into. We also had a technical contact available to us for when getting started, to whom we could reach out. But it would be good to add in some more entry-level documentation.

As far as the policy setup goes, our equipment was end-of-life and we weren't at a version that we could migrate from. So we decided to do greenfield for the setup and we're actually happy we did because Cisco's default setup on its cloud product, when they brought up a new blank instance for us, had a really good framework for rules, et cetera. We copied in exception lists and the like from our existing setup and we were up and running in an afternoon.

When we went in, we initially did it as a trial, because they offered a 30- or 60-day trial. We did that to see if this was what we wanted to do. We ended up poking around in the environment a little bit first, because the whole thing was an unbudgeted change for us. When we moved over to Microsoft we found we were having all these issues. We put some resources into trying to resolve them but we saw there were deficiencies in Office 365, when it comes to the filtering of email. We started the trial with Cisco to see if going back to them and their cloud would solve things. We liked what we saw and decided to move everything over. The grass really was greener on that side.

The downtime involved in the migration from Cisco's on-prem solution to the cloud email security was minimal, about 15 minutes. The downtime aspect wasn't especially important since we did it after hours. It's emails, so it's not like anybody was going to notice that it was down for that amount of time.

The learning curve involved in migrating from the on-prem to the cloud email security was pretty easy. The environment really is very similar to manage in the cloud. If you look at the management consoles that you're used to seeing on-prem, and you look at the ones in the cloud, about 99 percent is the same. There are some things that are unavailable because Cisco is handling the software upgrades, but almost all of it that you had on-prem is the same. There are a few extra steps to getting into the command line, they're a little bit weird, but all the policies are identical to the on-prem method. There's not much learning curve involved in switching.

Overall, the migration was massively easier than I expected it to be. We did it on a Sunday afternoon and it only took about three hours.

We were in touch with the technical contact from Cisco for some basic stuff, for getting started.

We were just evaluating between Cisco and Microsoft's advanced threat protection.

We decided not to evaluate anyone else when we saw that Cisco was going to be less expensive than we thought it was going to be. My expectation going in was that the cloud service would cost more than the licensing for on-prem would, because they're hosting it. But that wasn't actually the case. It ended up costing about the same as what the on-prem cost, except that we didn't have to buy hardware anymore, which obviously saves some money.

It's definitely worth looking at Cisco's cloud email security offering. It's surprisingly simple to get going with, and it really is easier to use than the on-prem because of everything they have built into it. It is surprisingly cost-effective.

It's integrated with their AMP product, although that's sold as a part of it. We haven't integrated it with other Cisco stuff at the moment. We've got third-party stuff that we have it integrated with. 

We are using it for our email gateway security for all our inbound and outbound email. We use a lot of the URL filtering and spam filtering as well as the dictionaries, e.g., if they try to spoof employee names.

We didn't have an email gateway initially. As spam was ramping up, the junk was getting through. So, we needed a gateway. We then worked with a local company who sold us this product and some training as well as how to get it up and running, configuring it. Over the years, they have been constantly changing it.

We use a lot of their search features to search for emails that have come through. Our end users come through it. They say, "This didn't email didn't arrive," or "How did this email get through?" So, I am constantly searching through message tracing and using that all the time.

I use the search all the time. Sometimes, it is hard to search for things and things are hard to find. People come to me all the time, saying, "This email didn't get through." Then, I go searching and don't find it on the first search. You have to think about alternative searches. I don't know if there is an easier way that they could help to find things. I don't know how they could simplify it, because now everybody else is using the cloud and everything is coming from Office 365, or whatever. It is just not the same environment from years ago where everybody had their own server and you could search easier.

When you run a trace and you are in the cloud, it's harder. You run a trace and it generates trace results. I haven't figured out how to get those off of the cloud. I don't know if there is a path to open up a ticket on that.

Before it was purchased by Cisco, we had already been using IronPort since 2005 or earlier.

It is very stable. We have never had any problems.

The way we are using it now, it does require maintenance. I decided to take a zero trust for URL links coming in emails or unknown links. Then, if there is a link that somebody wants to get through, then I have to add that to the list to allow it. So, there are some dictionaries and things to maintain the way we are running it now that we didn't have in the past. For many years, we got it running, then forgot about it. It just ran and ran. Now, I think it is just a different environment due to the level of phishing emails, etc. 

The way that we are running it now, there is more to maintain, like the dictionaries and the list of employees, so somebody doesn't spoof an employee's name. It takes maybe an hour or so a week to update the dictionaries and things like that. 

Right now, I'm the only one maintaining it.

The scalability is good. It seems like it still has capacity in the cloud. It is hard to tell in the cloud. However, the ones that we had on-prem were running real close to their limit for whatever reason: memory swapping and CPU utilization. So, we had to do something there. Right now, it seems like there is capacity/room to grow.

The solution protects 450 users. We plan to gradually increase users.

They have always been good when helping with problems. They are responsive and always come up with an answer.

We migrated from Cisco ESA to Cisco Cloud Email Security. 

The appliances were getting close to the end of life. They were using a lot of CPU, so it was time to do something with them. IT management seems to be going more to the cloud now, so it made sense to go to the Cisco Cloud solution. The machines that we had on-prem were really slow. For whatever reason, they were getting real slow. When we went to the cloud, we got away from that problem.

For the initial deployment, we might have spent a week getting it up and running. Then, we went for a day or two to training.

There wasn't really any downtime involved during the migration from our on-prem to Cisco Cloud Email Security, which was important to us. We didn't want to interrupt email flow. So, we prepared it, then there was a cutover. 

The migration from the vendor’s on-prem to Cloud Email Security wasn't too difficult.

A few times, we needed Cisco's expertise in the migration process to solve some problems for free. Because it is in the cloud, you can't get to the command line interface to access and download/upload files. So, I had to rely on Cisco for that.

There is a huge return compared to if we didn't have a gateway appliance, as far as blocking malicious emails.

The licensing was all transferred. A fair amount of the configuration had to be done by hand. We didn't transfer the people safe list and block lists. There were a number of things that we didn't transfer because they were in the cloud. It was a matter of going through and reconfiguring.

The familiar user interface was important in our decision to migrate from Cisco’s on-prem to Cloud Email Security. We have a lot of other projects going on. Being able to migrate to something that we were already familiar with versus migrating to Proofpoint or something else was a major decision factor. I didn't have to invest that much time, resources, and learning in a whole new product.

If you compare it over Proofpoint, it was a big savings. It was very competitive. It saved us from buying new appliances. Though, I don't know that would have been a big expense, because I didn't do a cost analysis of staying on-prem and replacing the appliances. We were more comparing the solution to Proofpoint, and the cost was considerably less than Proofpoint. It was already in place and working for us on-prem. So, I didn't want to move to Proofpoint because there would have been much more to learn.

Some of the things that we were doing in Cisco, we can't do it the same way in Proofpoint, from as much as I have looked at it. I know there is a difference. They have different solutions. They have some solutions that aren't configurable at all, such as, the lower price ones. They have another one where you are just like a tenant and everybody gets the same thing, then for it to be customizable, it is a lot more expensive. In orders of magnitude, it is more expensive than Cisco, which didn't make sense. With all the little tweaks and customizations that we're doing, I couldn't see how to do that based on the time I spent looking at Proofpoint. It might be doable, but I didn't figure out how to do it. So, I think Cisco is a little more configurable than Proofpoint for tweaking. I could be wrong, but that is my impression.

There wasn't much of a learning curve involved in migrating from Cisco’s on-prem to Cloud Email Security because they are very similar. There were just a few things that were different.

It is a good product. Be prepared to invest time in learning it, like anything. You need to have somebody who is a key administrator, like any enterprise-level product that you would bring in. Even if you will have Salesforce or whatever, you need to have an administrator who knows how to keep it running.

Email threats just keep getting worse and worse, so you need to keep on your toes.

I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).

The primary use case for Cisco Secure Email is for email security. It is used in scenarios similar to Fortinet, focusing on email security and integrating with Cisco Firewalls.

The integration with Cisco Firewalls has worked fine, allowing the two devices to share information about incidents. When deployed in an environment where most products are from Cisco, it facilitates easier integration.

Cisco's Secure Email integrates with Cisco Firewalls, utilizing the AMP as their anti-malware engine, which allows for information sharing between devices. 

Additionally, Cisco Secure Mail works well with data security integration, particularly in environments where all or most products are from Cisco.

The primary areas for improvement are the pricing and the complexity of deployment. 

The pricing is considered expensive, and the deployment process is complex, involving many steps and usually requiring more than one technician.

You can say the same period also as one year for Fortinet.

The latency is better compared to Fortinet. Based on my experience, it is a faster solution, particularly in scenarios involving firewall or malware protection.

Scalability is fine with Cisco Secure Email, as it does not place any limitations.

I would rate Cisco's customer support between eight and nine out of ten. Cisco's support is much better than Fortinet.

Positive

The initial setup is a bit complex due to multiple steps required for deployment.

The return on investment is not very good due to the expensive nature of the product.

The licensing is expensive and a bit complex with the new approach Cisco has taken. It is considered more complicated than other vendors.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Cisco Secure Email is our primary gateway. We are a service provider in India. Cisco scans every email that gets into our system.

We faced a targeted attack. Most of our customers were targeted, but no one got the email. It was quarantined by Cisco. That is why we are still using Cisco.

The solution has no competition. ATP has been the most valuable in improving our email security posture. It has helped our customers too. The click-time URL protection is also valuable.

When we use multiple Cisco devices, we cannot manage the servers with a single UI. We must log in to each server for the management. We cannot manage multiple devices from a single UI. The solution has some inhibitions. They need to be finetuned.

I have been using the solution for 15 years. I am using the latest version.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

We are supporting around two million mailboxes. I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. It is a multi-server architecture, and I have to manage them separately.

We hardly get in touch with the support team. Whenever we got in touch with the team, the support was good.

Positive

We are using both cloud and on-prem versions. The deployment took less than two hours. We keep a backup of the configuration ready. Once we implement the server, we just put in the configuration and start.

We do the deployment ourselves. We also do maintenance and troubleshooting. We have around 20 L3 engineers on our technical team.

The pricing is good. We do not have any issues. I rate the pricing a five to six out of ten. There are no hidden costs. We know about the additional costs associated with the tool.

We do not integrate the product with other tools. I will recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

It provides good IT assistance. 

It is not user-friendly, and it is quite complicated. So, it should be more user-friendly. The GUI is difficult to understand. 

We have been using this solution for four years. We don't use the latest version of the hardware. 

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, it is good.

It is not scalable. For scalability, Cisco products are not good. That is the problem. And for deployment, it's a three-tier architecture system.

We have around 200+ users.

Cisco's tech support is good. But they respond very late. The support in itself is good, so there is room for improvement. 

The setup is quite complicated. It took us one week to deploy. 

The deployment was done by the consultant company.

As per market availability, this solution is more expensive than other vendors.

My company is looking for a new email filtering server or system. So, I was just making the comparison with Cisco and FortiMail, and that's what we're actually looking for a new or updated system. So this is the reason I was doing this R&D.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.