We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum and Trellix Endpoint Security 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 product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The product's most valuable feature is the flexibility of installation with the console and a simple administration strategy."
"The most beneficial aspect of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum is its protection capabilities, followed by its device management capabilities. The ability to remotely install software is highly advantageous, making it a convenient and helpful feature."
"The encryption feature that allows you complete control of your device is what I found most valuable in Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum."
"The performance is good."
"EDR Optimum's best features are its dashboard, control of external media, and user-friendliness."
"The solution is very user friendly, which we appreciate."
"Support has been helpful."
"The solution is easy to use."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum Pros →
"The endpoint protection and disk encryption features are the most valuable."
"What I like best is the integrated end-to-end security that works with the security information and events manager."
"It has been protecting us for many years, and we hope it will continue to do so for many years to come."
"The solution includes a good combination of features for both signature and signature-less."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution is stable."
"It's easy to use and it's very powerful. It offers nice endpoint protection."
"A big advantage of McAfee Endpoint Security is the ability to manage very big environments. We are supporting environments with 200,000 to 300,000 endpoints. The ability to manage with one single console is very important for us. McAfee has phenomenally improved in terms of detection. It provides real-time detection and response with the error, Real Protect, and reputations. It is not only based on signatures but also on behavior analytics, artificial intelligence, or machine learning. We have environments that never had issues with ransomware in the last 20 years. McAfee has a very good performance in this field."
"Detections could be improved."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"The technology grows day by day, so we need to check for updates and do the updates daily. Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum is still improving over time and quality-wise, there are still things that need to be changed in the product, so that's why I rated it nine out of ten. Compatibility could also be improved in the product."
"EDR Optimum's scalability could be improved."
"The solution can improve the uninstallation process. The removal of the agent can be difficult. The purpose is for security, but it requires a lot of time and sometimes a special tool."
"For improvement, they should make the scanning process faster. The scanning and updating take more time."
"Support is an area for improvement. It should have faster response times."
"We would like more data to be available from this solution, in order for it to be usable in strategic decision making."
"I want Kaspersky to extend its products to internet protection. For example, I would like them to develop a firewall integrated with EDR."
"The solution needs to give more control to users on firewalls."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum Cons →
"We have had some of our clients not happy with McAfee Endpoint Security because it blocks some of the applications they are trying to use. They should make it easier to unblock applications."
"The solution's documentation is not streamlined and is in bits and pieces, which should be in a single format."
"McAfee Endpoint Protection could improve the word control feature."
"The vendor should simplify the way they bundle the products because it's very hard to explain to customers what products contain which features."
"We have a lot of problems with the user experience and it's difficult to implement. MacAfee's better than the ancient anti-virus solutions but it's a little slow to resolve. Many files with malware were destroyed through the network, and MacAfee doesn't detect anything."
"The solution needs to offer better local technical support."
"Tech support is not as helpful as they were in the past."
"With McAfee, if there is a zero-day vulnerability, you have to download the patch for it from the McAfee website, then apply it to your endpoint."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum is ranked 21st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 17 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum is rated 8.2, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum writes "Great threat response, provides for proactivity, and has automated threat identification". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum is most compared with SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, CrowdStrike Falcon and Symantec Endpoint Security, 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 SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Optimum vs. Trellix Endpoint Security 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.