We performed a comparison between Intercept X Endpoint and Trellix Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Intercept X Endpoint combines two products into one solution, offering strong performance, server protection, and efficient threat management capabilities. Trellix Endpoint Security is highly valued for its easy administration options and reliability. Intercept X Endpoint could benefit from better integration with third-party vendors and improved support for virtual infrastructures. Reviews suggest that Trellix could reduce resource consumption and improve user-friendliness.
Service and Support: Some users found Intercept X Endpoint's support team knowledgeable and supportive, while others expressed dissatisfaction with responsiveness. Some users have found the support for Trellix Endpoint Security helpful and reliable, while others have encountered ineffective assistance and communication problems.
Ease of Deployment: Intercept X Endpoint has a straightforward initial setup, with quick installation and simple configuration and maintenance. Some users said they occasionally encountered issues that required reinstallation. The setup process for Trellix Endpoint Security varies in difficulty, depending on the user's experience with McAfee and general technical expertise.
Pricing: Intercept X Endpoint is generally seen as fairly priced, but some users think it’s on the higher end of the price scale. Some find Trellix’s price reasonable and competitive, while others believe it could be lowered.
ROI: Users say that Intercept X Endpoint offers exceptional defense against ransomware and zero-day threats, leading to a positive return on investment. Trellix Endpoint Security provides significant time savings.
"The integration with other Microsoft solutions is the most valuable feature."
"I like how Microsoft XDR and the other Microsoft products are integrated into a single unified security stack covering identity access management, endpoint protection, email, cloud applications, etc."
"Scanning, vulnerability reporting, and the dashboard are the most valuable features."
"The 'Incidents and Alerts' tab is a valuable feature where we can find triggered alerts."
"Microsoft 365 Defender is a stable solution."
"The attack simulation is excellent; initially, this feature wasn't very robust, but Microsoft improved what we could achieve with it. We can now customize our practice phishing emails and include our company logo, for example. Attack simulation also helps integrate with third-party solutions where applicable and provides an overview of our security architecture through testing. The summary includes areas for improvement in our protection and what steps we need to take to get there."
"It's a great threat intelligence source for us, providing alerts for things it detects on the network and on the machines. We've used it often when there is a potential incident to see what was done on a computer. That works quite nicely because you can see everything that the user has done..."
"Setting up Microsoft 365 Defender is easy. It's a user-friendly solution that provides threat protection. It has good stability and scalability."
"It's quite simple to use and user friendly."
"The performance is good."
"We find all features valuable. It has zero-day protection, which is the most valuable feature of Intercept X. We have Intercept X with EDR. EDR is a very important feature. It gives an idea about the source of a particular attack. An administrator gets to know everything, which helps in understanding the things that need to be done or protected in the organization. Based on this information, an administrator can decide what needs to open or allowed in the network. Without EDR, Intercept X is like an antivirus, and the administrator won't get to know the things going on at the organizational level. I recommend purchasing an EDR solution for every organization."
"I appreciate the ability to use the latest endpoint protection features in case of an infection or cyber threat. This is especially true when using the product with a Sophos firewall solution, like the XG series. They collaborate effectively in the event of a cyber threat."
"I find the security heartbeat feature with synchronized security very useful. It's a very nice feature that allows you to basically switch off an endpoint. When an endpoint has got a virus or something like that, or it's infected or compromised, you can isolate it from the network, but only if you've got an XG Firewall as well. It also provides ease of use. It is the only antivirus that can recognize 25 out of the 36 ransomware and virus techniques that have been often used in terms of the behavior base using heuristics. It's beautiful, utterly amazing. No other antivirus can do that."
"One reason why I have stuck with Sophos is because it grabs it and deals with it, and if it's known malware, it can quarantine it or delete it."
"This solution can be used with any device, mobiles, desktops, or any appliances."
"The client isolation feature is a very effective feature."
"I have found the most valuable features to be the ability to manage the solution from anywhere and having an overview of the companies security."
"Communication with all Mcafee products (also 3rd parties) by DXL infrastructure."
"This is a good solution for antivirus and malware protection."
"The solution scales well."
"The product’s stability and security features enhance user protection and organizational security."
"The detection is great and the solution is constantly improving."
"There is a new feature where you can set thresholds for all the CPU consumption allowing for no consumption on the servers when the scans happen. It is a separate plugin or addon, and if we have it on all the virtual machines it automatically checks the resources, and based on that, it will schedule the scans. That is something that I have not seen in other antivirus solutions, such as Symantec."
"It's quite easy to install agents."
"While the XDR platform offers valuable functionalities, it falls short of other solutions in its ability to deliver a cohesive identity experience."
"There are a few technical issues with Defender XDR that can be improved. Sometimes, the endpoint devices are not reporting properly to the Defender 365 portal. When you're getting all the information from the Microsoft portal, the devices are sometimes not in sync. We have hundreds of endpoint devices, some needing to be onboarded again."
"The only problem I find is that the use cases are built-in. There is no template available that you can modify according to your organization's standards. What they give is very generic, the market standard, but that might not be applicable to every organization."
"Defender also lacks automated detection and response. You need to resolve issues manually. You can manage multiple Microsoft security products from a single portal, and all your security recommendations are in one place. It's easy to understand and manage. However, I wouldn't say Defender is a single pane of glass. You still need to switch between all of the available Microsoft tools. You can see all the alerts in one panel, but you can't automate remediation."
"One of the biggest downsides of Microsoft products, in general, is that the menus are often difficult to find, as they tend to move from place to place between versions."
"The interface could be improved. For example, if you want to do a phishing simulation for your employees, it can take a while to figure out what to do. The interface is a bit messy and could be updated. It isn't too bad, but doing some things can be a long process."
"Advanced attacks could use an improvement."
"There are other SIEM solutions that are easier to use, mainly based on the creation of rules, use cases, and groups."
"The solution is heavy in the usage of resources, you can notice the performance decrease. This should prove in the future."
"I would like to see better support for virtual and desktop infrastructures."
"Mobile device management is a challenging area, and it can be improved. Some areas in the DLP solution can also be improved. It has the DLP capability, but it is not an all-out DLP program. I would like to see them improve the DLP solution in terms of reporting and possibly network monitoring. Currently, they only do the reporting parts of it."
"In my opinion, there have been significant developments in the product. In my opinion, I don’t have any suggestions as of now, however I can suggest a cost deduction which will be beneficial for all the parties. It will also relieve our budget and benefit our team."
"As for improvement, more notifications or emails about what to watch out for globally would be nice. For instance, information about the spread of a current phishing campaign or ransomware would be very helpful. I find that I have to dig in the back to find out what is happening on the global scene for things to be aware of."
"They should work on the logs and events. Sophos Intercept X needs to increase the interface test so that it can export to a live event."
"It consumes a lot of resources, and something needs to be done for that."
"The number one thing I would like is if their support could be a little faster and it would be a little easier to get a hold of support when you need them."
"When it runs in the background of the endpoint, the devices get slowed down for some applications."
"Signatures to protect against new attacks."
"Recently, Trellix has introduced a CDR, which involves more manual response than automatic. I believe they should enhance the system by adding features like automated response and the ability to create custom playbooks. This is crucial for an EDR solution, and currently, Trellix lacks this feature while other products offer it."
"The local technical support could be better."
"The price of the solution is high in Asia."
"An area of improvement for this solution is to make it easier to manage."
"There are two main areas that require improvement. One is the size of the packages. Although I'll admit manageability is good, if I want to deploy, let's say just the antivirus or just the firewall, each of those package sizes are quite large. They are sometimes as big as 200MB or 250MB. When I have operations in remote areas where connectivity is always poor, it's difficult. To deploy such a package in a remote location over the internet or something like that is always challenging."
"The solution could provide open XDR in addition to EDR."
Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 95 reviews. Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Fortinet FortiClient, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our Intercept X Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.