We performed a comparison between Intercept X Endpoint and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The stability is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"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."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"The most valuable feature is the CryptoGuard in Sophos. In a case of a ransomware attack, this feature comes into action to protect us."
"The solution's initial setup process was straightforward."
"We use Sophos Intercept X for Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) and Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) in our organization."
"The most valuable features are the cloud administration and the strength of the ransomware protection."
"The performance is good."
"There are products that are technically stronger. However, this product has everything in one solution, which makes it a strong endpoint option."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The deployment is quick. It just depends on the environment and what you may be replacing."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"It is very valuable in finding out unknown malware."
"The response part of EDR was most valuable. We used that to separate the endpoint from the network. We utilized the solution during the instant response. We were also utilizing advanced malware detection capabilities, but we benefited the most from its help with the response."
"FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front."
"The agents are easy to deploy."
"The most valuable network security feature is the network sandbox solution. This sandbox feature works on traffic flow."
"The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP."
"The most valuable feature is the integration between environments."
"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."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"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."
"Stability-wise, we had issues with some clients which had to be dealt with manually. The issue was with that installation part."
"It's a bit heavy on the computers. So once you install it, the computer slows down. It is a resource-intensive solution."
"The after sales service and support could be improved."
"Technical support can be improved. There could be shared support, i.e. where someone in Egypt can respond."
"The cloud management console could be a little more user-friendly."
"Features that should be improved in the upgrade involve the excessive consumption of the the solution's processor, RAM and resources."
"If Sophos Intercept allows users to restrict website access based on specific needs, such as streaming new videos for business purposes, we would prefer to use that."
"There should be a report including a flowchart or diagram. It will be useful to evaluate the software’s effectiveness."
"From an improvement perspective, I want everything in the solution to be free."
"A policy-editing console should be added."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
"One suggestion is they should reduce the constant notifications. Whenever I open my laptop, there are too many notifications from McAfee, and it gets annoying."
"There should be better integration between the ePolicy Orchestrator and FireEye console. The integration of both consoles should be better."
"Intrusion detection and intervention seem to be falling behind the competition."
"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."
"Looking at the current ePolicy orchestrator, and the transition of most vendors to the cloud, they need to do an improvement with the current dashboard or the overall aesthetic of their GUI."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews. Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Seqrite Endpoint Security, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Open EDR. See our Intercept X Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.