We performed a comparison between Trellix Active Response and Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)."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."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"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."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The solution is scalable."
"It's a little lighter compared to the older version, which was mostly signature-based."
"We are hoping to automate detection and response and take advantage of user behavior analytics, given that we are working from home. About half of our workers are still remote, so Active Response gives us that visibility and lets us automate a number of those events."
"Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) offers endpoint protection and helps collect information while also allowing users to investigate malicious files in an IT environment...It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The product's initial setup phase was very straightforward since you just need to install it, and it works."
"The product is user-friendly."
"When Trellix detects some threats, the device is isolated in a quarantine zone for examination."
"The product provides a one-click recovery of encrypted files."
"It is a scalable solution and very easy to use."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the ability to isolate or quarantine devices and block or detect Ransomware and other well-known tools that are used to exploit vulnerabilities on devices."
"Blocking browser navigation is a feature of the solution with which we have experienced success."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"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 only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"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."
"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 solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"There are some components on the cloud that should also reside in the on-prem deployment models but don't."
"While the product is good, we are currently facing support issues."
"I also expected Active Response 's user interface to be much more analytical."
"An area for improvement in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the historical search. For example: when you have information on the artifact and a precedent, you want to do a search, and that is a bit lacking in the tool."
"The solution's downside stems from the fact that Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and McAfee MVISION Endpoint are not combined into a single solution, so from an improvement perspective, they need to be combined into a single solution."
"The alert feature of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response needs improvement because for you to get the alerts, you have to log on to the portal. What my company needs is a tool that sends you alerts. For example, if it detects a threat on your machine, it should send you an alert. My company gets the alerts instead from the antivirus software rather than the EDR. If you want to see the alerts on McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, you have to connect to the system manually. Another area for improvement in the tool is the reporting. My company needs weekly and monthly reports about the alerts, but you can't extract reports from McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, so a decision was made to move to another EDR solution, particularly Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, next month. My company tested Microsoft Defender for Endpoint via a POC for one to three months. The resource usage of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is also an area for improvement because it consumes a lot of memory. For example, during the on-demand scan, you can't work because of the high CPU usage. You need to schedule the scans. McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response has a lot of modules, but my company doesn't use all modules."
"The technical support must be improved."
"The solution lacks the ability to integrate with external platforms. In future releases of the solution, I would like to see the solution increase its integration capabilities with external platforms."
"Trellix does not support Linux and Mac."
"The endpoints and utilization are too high, which impacts the production activity."
"The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Trellix Active Response is ranked 57th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews. Trellix Active Response is rated 6.4, while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Trellix Active Response writes "Lighter with good stability and pretty good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) writes "Multifeatured, with web control, advanced threat protection, and threat prevention capabilities, but its alerting and reporting features need improvement". Trellix Active Response is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), whereas Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Cynet, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Trend Vision One.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.