We performed a comparison between McAfee MVISION Endpoint vs Trellix Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Of the two solutions, Trellix Endpoint Security is the more popular choice because not only is deployment easy, but it has an appealing set of product features and seems to have more powerful detection capabilities than McAfee MVISION.
"This is stable and scalable."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The stability is very good."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The most valuable feature is ease of use."
"The initial setup of Trellix Endpoint Security was straightforward."
"The product has a robust reporting feature"
"The solution is reliable."
"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."
"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."
"The solution includes a good combination of features for both signature and signature-less."
"It has improved my organization because it helps with visibility, in terms of security. We can see the actual attack and can contain it. The antivirus can detect that."
"The threat scanning is excellent. It uses predictive technology and I can utilize attack data to help us fine-tune our systems and network infrastructure. This protects us against current and future attacks."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"Trellix integrates well with most SIEM and data classification solutions."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"The independent modules are very good."
"A great console with a user-friendly GUI."
"MVISION Endpoint is so much easier and so much simpler for the lay security personnel to handle."
"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."
"Detections could be improved."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"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."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"Patch management is unavailable"
"The solution's technical support should be improved since we faced a lot of issues with the support. There were some delays in responses from the technical support."
"The management console is a little bit difficult to understand for admins. You need a lot of time in order to become familiar with that. It is a little bit complicated and not too easy to understand. Its price can also be improved. Its price is higher than its competitors. McAfee also needs to have better cloud integration and more data centers in the EU. The cloud center should be in Europe or in Germany. In Germany, it is really important to have access to your data within the same country. Customer data needs to be placed and processed in the same country."
"It would be a lot easier if I could add multiple user accounts within a single device."
"I think it would be nice if Dynamic Application Control would come together with McAfee Endpoint Security."
"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."
"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 interface is complex."
"You do not have access to all the features when you use the Trellix web interface. For example, you cannot do device or drive encryption from the web interface. Also, when we're working with customers, it's sometimes challenging to get sales support. Delays mean we might lose an opportunity. Lastly, Trellix lacks some documentation about custom features."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
"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."
"Sometimes, one might face issues with the scalability of the product. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
"The product could be flexible and offer better pricing."
"The customization capabilities of the solution are an area where it lacks, so it would be great if our company could customize the solution to meet the demands of our customers."
"If you have another endpoint product running on the same machine, you have to fine tune functions from FireEye to avoid performance and user experience issues."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 95 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trend Micro Deep Security and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), Open EDR and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Trellix Endpoint Security vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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.
It depends on what you want to achieve. With McAfee ENS you have complete coverage through McAfee solutions, that is, it has an AV engine (threat Protection), you have Advance Threat Protection (ATP), light control over browsers, and a firewall.
With MVISION Endpoint you add being able to manage Microsoft Defender from the MVISION ePO or EPO on-premise console. But the AV engine is Defender, not McAfee. So you depend on the potential and configuration you make of Defender.