We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert and Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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."The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"The stability is very good."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The most valuable features are the reports."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is an effective protection solution."
"The integration with our hypervisor is quite smooth, especially within the Kaspersky Enterprise environment. We have many virtual machines, and the integration is helpful."
"The product has an easy-to-use EDR module based on signature-based antivirus detection. It is a complete software."
"We have a central console and from there you can monitor all workstations via an agent."
"Has great behavior detection and a very good firmware scanner."
"We've found the solution to be stable."
"We can scale the solution."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Pros →
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...I rate the solution's technical support team a nine and a half or ten out of ten."
"The biggest strength of the solution is that it's an integrated product that includes EDR and antivirus."
"The most valuable feature I found in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the guided analytics or guided EDR investigation."
"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."
"If there is any malicious behavior in the workstation or server, the tool stops or isolates it automatically and generates alerts."
"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."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The solution is not stable."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"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."
"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"
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"I would like better integration with other products."
"The solution can improve by providing automatic fixing of vulnerabilities and reducing the resources used in the server component and endpoint agent. They are very bulky and use a lot of CPU, memory, and hard drive resources."
"The product should release more frequent updates. The tool needs to improve its scalability as well."
"Documentation needs to be simplified and improved so that it provides good product awareness for end users."
"The installation process could be more streamlined."
"It consumes many system resources."
"If it covered more products, it would improve the XDR."
"I would like to integrate Kaspersky with my Log Collector SIEM. Right now that's not possible."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Cons →
"The graphical view for nodes must be increased."
"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 endpoints and utilization are too high, which impacts the production activity."
"The technical support must be improved."
"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."
"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 CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 44 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 23rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is rated 8.2, while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert writes "Solid security and performance; overall a useful tool". 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". Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is most compared with Trend Vision One, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cynet, IBM Security QRadar and Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response, whereas Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert vs. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.