We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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: Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is commended for its extensive cross-platform protection, user-friendly interface, and compatibility with third-party software. Trellix Endpoint Security is highly valued for its easy administration options and reliability. Kaspersky users requested improvements in security and stability. They also want better documentation, faster malware scanning, enhanced encryption, and improved remote management. Reviews suggest that Trellix could reduce resource consumption and improve user-friendliness.
Service and Support: Users say that Kaspersky’s support is helpful and responsive, whether it comes from resellers, partners, or the vendor. 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: Some reported that Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is straightforward to setup, while others find it more complex and time-consuming. The setup process for Trellix Endpoint Security varies in difficulty, depending on the user's experience with McAfee and general technical expertise.
Pricing: Users gave mixed feedback on the price of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. Some found it reasonable while others thought it was expensive. Some find Trellix’s price reasonable and competitive, while others believe it could be lowered.
ROI: Our reviewers said that Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business has proven to be a solid investment. Trellix Endpoint Security provides significant time savings.
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"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."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The interface is friendly."
"I like the security that this solution provides."
"Endpoint Security is efficient and easy to use. It doesn't slow the performance of your personal computer."
"The solution has been quite stable."
"The implementation and integration are easy."
"The failure rate is very low."
"It's a user-friendly solution."
"I like how it protects the network and all the endpoints."
"Trellix Endpoint Security's dashboard is very flexible, and I can create my own user-specific dashboard depending on user privilege or preference."
"Threat prevention is valuable because most clients use other solutions like antivirus as part of web protection. I don't find that kind of solution useful."
"When Intel acquired McAfee they worked on the protocol so that all vendors can work on the same platform. It's a very big improvement in McAfee. All McAfee products talk to each other. Other vendor's products can join this platform as well so it makes it more powerful on the enterprise side for McAfee."
"The solution scales well."
"The solution offers very good endpoint security."
"The thing that I like is that they have gathered almost all the products in one management server, the ePolicy Orchestrator."
"Initially, the DLP was very valuable for disabling access to USB drives."
"The user behavioral analysis feature is great."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"Detections could be improved."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The application running speed consumes that of RAM, so performance speed is an issue."
"The solution could be a lot lighter. You really feel it when the laptop starts."
"I would like to have more forensic features. For example, if we are hit by an attack, I would like to have tools to investigate what kind of attack, who has attacked, how it was attacked, and what we could do to stop this kind of attack in the future. I would like to have more forensics capability built into Kaspersky."
"I might have the best product in the market. But if it's not properly configured, then I'm losing many of these features. I'm not getting the most out of them. And this is actually one of the biggest challenges that we're facing."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business should improve its reporting. There are also some issues in the cloud portal. The solution's pricing can be cheaper."
"The product must improve its price to suit small and mid-size enterprises."
"The solution could be more secure."
"Reaching their support team can be difficult."
"There are more secure featured solutions from McAfee on the market but for smaller companies like ours, they are too expensive."
"Users can just install software into their computers. We need some sort of application control system that, if there are any pieces of software that are not whitelisted, then the solution could flag it or maybe alert the administers. That would be very helpful."
"The platform needs improvement in terms of handling heavy databases."
"While we are pleased with the endpoint solution, there should also be a separate one for the firewall."
"The interface is complex."
"There are times the solution has some additional software added that is not fully integrated properly, such as Exchange Group Sheild. It is quite old and is not fully integrated properly and could be improved."
"McAfee GW Security and McAfee Child Safety need some improvement as they are relatively new."
"Technical support from the vendor is very bad."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 111 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". 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 Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Trend Vision One 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 Security for Business 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.