We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiClient and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The initial setup is easy. Our clients use the FortiClient EMS, which is the central console for installing FortiClient. It is easy and very user friendly."
"It works well and the performance is good."
"The configuration is the most valuable feature."
"I find it very easy to configure and also very stable."
"I use the tool to connect server to an ISP Data Center."
"It's easy to use, easy to deploy, and I have more visibility over my network that shows which users are connected to the firewalls, which users are connected to the network, and what they're accessing."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiClient is dual authentication and the VPN is secure."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiClient are ease of use and simple configuration."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"The platform’s most valuable features are ease of use, integration, and deployment."
"Provides protection against threats."
"The activation of features within ENS and the collection of threats into a single console is a strong point."
"It's very stable and reliable."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint is stable."
"MVISION offers decent protection."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The solution is not stable."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The pricing could use improvement."
"The current version of this solution does not show the malicious websites that have been visited. They should add this to an upcoming release."
"There is room for improvement by increasing the solution's knowledge base."
"The only thing that is lacking in this product is the support. Their support can be improved."
"Compatibility issues between different versions."
"The software inventory part is not yet up-to-date. It doesn't have a great interface, which is a disadvantage. I wish we could leverage it, but we don't use it at all because it's not that reliable."
"We'd like to see a deployment wizard to help implementation become streamlined."
"The filtering process could be improved."
"It is a very heavy tool, unfortunately."
"They could also increase or improve the scalability because to my knowledge the biggest bandwidth can only support up to 10 gigs of input."
"The way that signatures work when using this solution could be improved. They could be more user friendly. We would like the ability to select a client's signature from a menu or file share to save time."
"Performance is a problematic area in the solution needing improvement."
"The technical support needs some improvement. When product distribution errors occur, we have to contact technical support, which is a very tedious task."
"We'd like better UI on the management screen."
"You do not have access to all the features when you use the Trellix web interface. For example, you cannot do device or drive encryption from the web interface. Also, when we're working with customers, it's sometimes challenging to get sales support. Delays mean we might lose an opportunity. Lastly, Trellix lacks some documentation about custom features."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 86 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews. Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiClient writes "Easy to set up and user-friendly with good support ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Fortinet FortiClient is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway and Ivanti Connect Secure, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Fortinet FortiClient vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.