Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS Security Hub vs Trellix ESM comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS Security Hub
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (7th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (15th)
Trellix ESM
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (27th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. AWS Security Hub is designed for Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) and holds a mindshare of 3.6%, down 4.5% compared to last year.
Trellix ESM, on the other hand, focuses on Security Information and Event Management (SIEM), holds 1.2% mindshare, up 0.8% since last year.
Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
AWS Security Hub3.6%
Wiz15.2%
Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks9.6%
Other71.6%
Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Trellix ESM1.2%
Splunk Enterprise Security7.1%
Wazuh6.4%
Other85.3%
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
 

Featured Reviews

Karthik Ekambaram - PeerSpot reviewer
Director at Scybers
Has helped identify misconfigurations and prioritize risks but lacks multi-cloud support and deeper integration features
AWS Security Hub cannot scale up to multiple different cloud environments; it only works for AWS. There are other products in the market for CSPM that can give you multi-cloud environment misconfigurations, even Microsoft for that matter. Regarding the integration of AWS Security Hub with third-party tools, I am not certain whether we can integrate them, but there is no need to do so. However, AWS Security Hub cannot integrate with other cloud providers, so it only supports the AWS environment. The compliance checks within AWS Security Hub are good, but we don't use them much. We utilize compliance frameworks such as CIS compliance frameworks and ISO 27017 framework, which are beneficial, but it can improve in other areas too, such as including NIST and other frameworks beyond just ISO and CIS. Improvements can be applicable for scalability, particularly on integration with multi-cloud environments, and compliance frameworks can be added for more variety as well. The unified dashboard in AWS Security Hub is adequate; I cannot say it is exceptional, but the content available in the dashboards is satisfactory for now.
MD
Senior Vice President IT at AS IT Consulting Pvt. Ltd.
Offers comprehensive report generation while maintaining ease of integration
We need to improve Trellix ESM by making sure that most of the logging devices available in the global market should be covered, and if there is any device which is not covered, there should not be any additional charges for writing the custom parsers on that. We can add some new features regarding AI in the future for Trellix ESM, but the maturity will take a longer time. There are many false positives that happen in an environment during the first couple of months, or around six months, so the system analyst is not able to identify whether the event which has occurred is a true positive or a false positive.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Security Hub provides insightful information about what is running and where there might be weaknesses."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is easy to manage...It is a scalable solution."
"The advantage is that it is cloud-native, and we do not need to install agents or sensors to find findings."
"The platform has valuable features for security."
"The most beneficial aspect of Security Hub is its proactive capability, allowing us to identify potential security issues before they escalate."
"I find all of the features to be highly valuable."
"The most valuable feature of AWS Security Hub is the ability to track when monitoring is not enabled on any of my resources."
"The solution shows us our compliance score."
"It has good technical support, which is available around the clock. You can call up anytime and get whatever you want. My queues are resolved."
"We are now able to completely monitor our environment so we can review what is there, which is a big win for us."
"The most valuable feature in ESM is its search and reporting feature. It's really nice."
"It is easy to use and deploy. It comes with user-friendly manuals."
"It is a good central viewpoint for issues. These can then be investigated in more detail on the subnet server(s)/endpoints."
"It blocks the things which are not to be allowed. It has an adaptive mode where it learns for itself."
"The most valuable features of McAfee ESM are intrusion detection, malware protection, and the device controller."
"The product’s most valuable feature is log monitoring."
 

Cons

"The solution will only give you insight if you have configure rule enabled. It should work more like Prisma Cloud and Dome9 which have a better approach."
"Security Hub is currently not worth investing in, as it requires more configurations and integration with other services to work effectively."
"The user interface, graphs, and dashboards of the solution could improve in the future. They are not very sophisticated and could use an update."
"AWS Security Hub cannot scale up to multiple different cloud environments; it only works for AWS."
"From an improvement perspective, there is a need to add more compliance since, right now, AWS Security Hub only provides four to five compliances to control the tool."
"One aspect that could be improved in the solution is its adaptability to different markets and geopolitical restrictions. In certain regions like Thailand, specific services from certain countries or providers, such as AWS or Azure, might be limited or blocked. It also needs improvement in would require configuring the solution more adaptable to AWS infrastructure and function."
"It's not user-friendly. Too much going on, too many unnecessary findings, not very visual. You can't do much compared to other similar tools that are cheaper and better."
"The solution should be easier to learn and use"
"McAfee ESM is not user-friendly and the log is not accurate. For instance, if I were assigned to generate a log for changes made today, I wouldn't be able to see all the modifications. While Palo Alto allows us to see all changes, McAfee ESM only captures one out of every ten changes. It's crucial to have visibility into all changes made."
"The product’s alert response feature needs improvement. It could be more flexible and secure."
"It is more difficult to operate Trellix ESM than other solutions."
"The initial setup is difficult and could improve."
"There's no software support from McAfee."
"I would like to see good analytics in future releases."
"Tech support is required each time there is a system update of the solution."
"The solution needs to improve case management. The UI is confusing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of AWS Security Hub is average compared to other solutions."
"AWS Security Hub's pricing is pretty reasonable."
"AWS Security Hub is not an expensive tool. I would consider it to be a cheap solution. AWS Security Hub follows the PAYG pricing model, meaning you will have to pay for whatever you use."
"The pricing is fine. It is not an expensive tool."
"The price of the solution is not very competitive but it is reasonable."
"Security Hub is not an expensive solution."
"There are multiple subscription models, like yearly, monthly, and packaged."
"The cost is based on the number of compliances, core checks, and services required, and for more than 10,000 recommendations, the charge is just one dollar."
"The pricing is fair."
"McAfee is the right choice for a low-budget solution."
"The price of McAfee ESM is higher than some of the other solutions. There are additional features that can be added at an additional fee."
"The pricing is good, and they are competitive compared to providers such as RSA and IBM QRadar."
"The cost is dependent on the customer's environment and requirements."
"The price is good. It's moderate. We follow a pay-as-you-go model. There are different models available, and they can also be monthly. You can choose monthly or yearly. It's very flexible. If our existing customers exceed the current plan, you can just call McAfee and get it extended."
"Regarding pricing, Trellix ESM is not that expensive. It's less than half the cost of IBM QRadar."
"The product is slightly expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) solutions are best for your needs.
882,180 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

VS
Manager, Enterprise Risk Consulting at a tech company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Feb 26, 2015
HP ArcSight vs. IBM QRadar vs. ​McAfee Nitro vs. Splunk vs. RSA Security vs. LogRhythm
We at Infosecnirvana.com have done several posts on SIEM. After the Dummies Guide on SIEM, we are following it up with a SIEM Product Comparison – 101 deck. So, here it is for your viewing pleasure. Let me know what you think by posting your comments below. The key products compared here are…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Comms Service Provider
16%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise12
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise24
 

Questions from the Community

Which is better - Azure Sentinel or AWS Security Hub?
We like that Azure Sentinel does not require as much maintenance as legacy SIEMs that are on-premises. Azure Sentinel is auto-scaling - you will not have to worry about performance impact, you will...
What do you like most about AWS Security Hub?
The most valuable features of the solution are the scanning of all the cloud environments and most of the compliances available in the cloud.
What needs improvement with AWS Security Hub?
AWS Security Hub cannot scale up to multiple different cloud environments; it only works for AWS. There are other products in the market for CSPM that can give you multi-cloud environment misconfig...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for McAfee ESM?
When discussing Trellix ESM pricing and licensing, if you consider some premium product, the pricing also has to be premium, however, enterprise customers who look for a premium product, alongside ...
What needs improvement with McAfee ESM?
Areas of Trellix ESM that could be improved or enhanced include checking on the clients who are still on-prem, especially banks, as most are not moving everything to the cloud due to confidentialit...
What is your primary use case for McAfee ESM?
My customer's usual use case for Trellix ESM involves one client, as most of the users have moved to ESM. Nowadays, they don't use IPS only, since McAfee IPS is standalone; they incorporate firewal...
 

Also Known As

SQRRL
McAfee ESM, NitroSecurity, McAfee Enterprise Security Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Edmunds, Frame.io, GoDaddy, Realtor.com
San Francisco Police Credit Union, Wªstenrot Gruppe, Volusion, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Government of New Brunswick, State of Colorado, Macquarie Telecom, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Cologne Bonn Airport
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Security Hub vs. Trellix ESM and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
882,180 professionals have used our research since 2012.