Lumu vs Trellix Network Detection and Response comparison

"The tool's support team helps partners resolve any problems with the product."

"Most of it is automated, so I do not have to watch it to get alerts."

"Lumu protects against threats immediately and handles them in time."

"The context provided by the tool is very complete, it includes the miter matrix, playbooks, links, hashes, and much more."

"You can access external links, playbooks, MITRE Matrix, and a lot of information."

"It's been helpful for overall extended network visibility."

"I like Lumu's simple user interface. When we deployed it, we got full access, allowing us to identify IP addresses on the network and connect machine names to users. It helped us identify and block threats via the firewall. I also appreciate the chat support and ticket closure process. We're currently reviewing network detection solutions, and my recommendations include Lumu, Sentinel, and a few others. Regarding functionality and user-friendliness, I would recommend Lumu over the others."

"The product has helped improve our organization by being easy to use and integrate. This saves time, trouble and money."

"If we are receiving spam emails, or other types of malicious email coming from a particular email ID, then we are able to block them using this solution."

"Its ability to find zero-day threats, malware and anything malicious has greatly improved my customer's organization, especially for protecting the users' browser."

"Before FireEye, most of the times that an incident would happen nobody would be able to find out where or why the incident occurred and that the system is compromised. FireEye is a better product because if the incident already happened I know that the breach is there and that the system is compromised so we can take appropriate action to prevent anything from happening."

"I also like its logging method. Its logging is very powerful and useful for forensic purposes. You can see the traffic or a specific activity or how something entered your network and where it went."

"Support is very helpful and responsive."

"We see ROI in the sense that we don't have to react because it stops anything from hurting the network. We can stop it before we have a bigger mess to clean up."

"The most valuable feature is the view into the application."

"Lumu's ability to discover threats is an area of concern where improvements are needed."

"It would be good if we could access the physical logs."

"The integration with different vendors and endpoints could be improved."

"The reports need improvement."

"I am happy with the current features. However, one important one is to improve the reports."

"Nothing so far needs to be improved."

"The free version is minimal compared to the full version."

"If you want to search the hashes in the environment, you need to put in IOCs one by one, making it a very hectic job."

"There is a lot of room for Improvement in the offering, from cost to functionality. It is pretty straightforward to implement which is an advantage. However, it falls short in pricing, detection capabilities, and, most importantly, reporting and policy management."

"The analytics could be better. It seems heavily influenced by the McAfee and FireEye integration, and that integration still isn't seamless."

"They can maybe consider supporting some compliance standards. When we are configuring rules and policies, it can guide whether they are compliant with a particular compliance authority. In addition, if I have configured some rules that have not been used, it should give a report saying that these rules have not been used in the last three months or six months so that I disable or delete those rules."

"It would be great if we could create granular reports based on the protocols, types of attacks, regions of attack, etc. Also we would like to easily be able to add exceptions to rules in cases of false positives."

"I would love to see better reporting. Because you can't export some of the reports in proper formats, it is hard to extract the data from reports."

"It is not a very secure product."

"It would be very helpful if there were better integration with other solutions from other vendors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto."

"It is the cheapest solution we found."

"The tool is available at a good price. The tool offers a good and competitive price for customers."

"Compared to Lumu, other solutions are more expensive. SentinelOne was a bit cheaper, and another provider's price structure is unclear, but Lumu fit our budget nicely. SentinelOne's cost depends on the number of devices, and it might be similar to Lumu's, depending on deployment."

"The pricing is a little high."

"The user fee is not as high but the maintenance fee is expensive."

"There are some additional services that I understand the vendor provides, but our approach was to package all of the features that we were looking to use into the product."

"Its price is a bit high. A small customer cannot buy it. Its licensing is on a yearly basis."

"FireEye is comparable to other products, such as HX, but seems expensive. It may cause us to look at other products in the market."

"When I compare this solution to its competitors in the market, I find that it is a little expensive."

"When you purchase FireEye Network Security NX, will need to purchase a megabit per second package. You must know your needs from day one."

"The tool is a bit pricey."