We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"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."
"When Trellix detects some threats, the device is isolated in a quarantine zone for examination."
"The most valuable feature I found in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the guided analytics or guided EDR investigation."
"Trellix has a user-friendly interface."
"If there is any malicious behavior in the workstation or server, the tool stops or isolates it automatically and generates alerts."
"The biggest strength of the solution is that it's an integrated product that includes EDR and antivirus."
"What we're using the most and what we found valuable in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response are Web Control, Advanced Threat Protection, and Threat Prevention features."
"The product's initial setup phase was very straightforward since you just need to install it, and it works."
"The installation phase of the solution was very easy."
"MVISION offers decent protection."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable network security feature is the network sandbox solution. This sandbox feature works on traffic flow."
"It is easy to use, flexible, and stable. Because it is a cloud-based solution and it integrates all endpoints of the cloud, we can do an IOC-based search. It can search the entire enterprise and tell us the endpoints that are possibly compromised."
"We have a cloud-based instance, so we can deploy all our configurations through the cloud. That's the beauty of FireEye."
"Trellix integrates well with most SIEM and data classification solutions."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its simplicity."
"The solution is not stable."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"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."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"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 dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"The endpoints and utilization are too high, which impacts the production activity."
"Trellix does not support Linux and Mac."
"One of the issues about the product stems from the failure to work on its administrative scalability. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
"The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
"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 dashboard and reporting features are not so user-friendly or intuitive, so they need some work."
"The technical support must be improved."
"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."
"I hope the solution can be used in cloud systems going forward."
"The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve by an overall simplification of the solution."
"The complexity of advanced modules can be improved."
"The reports need more development. They need more details on the reports and more details taking the executive view into consideration."
"In some cases, the detection part was not accurate enough. We opened a few cases for the vendor to help us with some miscategorized findings on the endpoints. There were some false positive detections, and we had to work with the vendor to get them tested. We even had some incidents that were not detected. It was a black box type of solution for us."
"The solution lacks device control."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 49 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Active Response, Cynet, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon and Trend Vision One, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Open EDR and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
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.