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

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs Trellix Endpoint Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Microsoft Defender for Endp...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
190
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (2nd), Anti-Malware Tools (1st), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (2nd), Microsoft Security Suite (6th)
Trellix Endpoint Security
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is 11.5%, down from 15.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Endpoint Security is 3.4%, down from 3.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Sudhen Swami - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to update with good protection and a useful cloud portal
We've mainly used it for endpoints. However, we've also used it for DLP as well. We're also in the process of implementing it for cloud and identity as well. However, it's very good for endpoints, and that's our main focus. The malware protection is good. The visibility it provides is very useful. We can combine visibility with wider security features and alerts around malware, misconfiguration, or any other kinds of threats. The cloud portal is quite good. From there, we are able to see alerts and have colleagues review issues and monitor to see if any patterns arise. It's serving us quite well overall. It allows us to look at other items, like application and browser control. It helps us prioritize threats. We have a process in place now where we can review issues and remediate them effectively. We have been able to integrate a variety of Microsoft security products together. We use Azure AD, for example, and we've begun to implement DLP, among other items. We're looking at labeling and tagging and will expand into that soon. Defender has more stringent system requirements than, for example, Check Point. So when we implemented the Check Point Endpoint agent, that solution didn't mind what version of Windows you were using. When we moved to Defender, Defender had certain system prerequisites that had to be met. So we had to make sure that we're on a minimum version of Windows when we're utilizing Office, and Office has to be a particular version as well. It has more stringent system requirements that have to be met before you can implement it. It works natively together with other Microsoft solutions. Once you get more and more of those different components across the environment, then you start to get better visibility. So, rather than having lots of different solutions, you have fewer solutions and a single vendor solution. That way, you start getting into a position where you get better visibility and integration as well. The standardization is good. It's important. It's helping me with monitoring and learning. Updates and upgrades are quite smooth and seamless. Defender helps us automate routine tasks. Quite a lot of Microsoft is straightforward for us now. Previously, we didn't have enough resources and were unable to look at the alerts. Having this in place makes things a lot more straightforward for us. We have both the technology and the people in place now, alongside the process. We do see the benefits in that, and that's why we're continuing our adoption across the estate in terms of client and server as well. It's helping us avoid looking at multiple dashboards and centralized monitoring. We're not fully there yet. We're getting there. While we haven't witnessed time saving yet, once it's fully deployed, it will. By then, we'll have standardized processes across a single solution. We have saved money, however, as we continue to reduce non-Mircosft systems. Since we won't be using various competing technologies, we can save on licensing costs. We've likely so far saved 15%. While it's hard to estimate exactly how much, the solution has helped us decrease time to detection and time to respond.
AhmedEl-Tayeb - PeerSpot reviewer
Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services
Some of our products have a first and second line owned by us. We are giving support services to the customers instead of the vendor. Some other products are supported directly by the technology vendor, however. Technical support from the vendor is very bad. Usually, when the customer submits a ticket, they put a severity level on the case. Whenever the case is very important, and there is a real malfunction in the product on the customer side, and there is something down that needs someone to have a look immediately, it takes more time than it should to even engage with the customer. When someone has to contact the customer and have a remote session within the customer environment, they sometimes lack in terms of communication with the customer. The support centers are located in the East and not all have an acceptable level of English in order to communicate directly with the customer.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The whole bundle of the product, which is similar to other Microsoft products, is valuable. Ten years ago, you had third-party stuff for different things. You had one solution for email archiving and another third-party one for something else. Nowadays, Microsoft Office covers all the stuff that was formerly covered by third-party solutions. It is the same with antivirus. The functionality is just basic. You have the scanning, and then you also have a kind of cloud-based protection and reporting about your environment. With Microsoft Security Center, you have a complete overview of your environment. You know the software inventory, and you have security recommendations. You can not only see that the antivirus is up to date; you can also see where are the vulnerabilities in your system. Microsoft Security Center tells you where you have old, deprecated software and what kind of CVEs are addressed. It's really cool stuff."
"I like that Defender is integrated and doesn't have a third-party payload trying to advertise subscription renewal."
"We like that it has a free version available."
"The intelligence mechanisms are good."
"The most valuable feature is that we can use the solution right out of the box without too much configuration."
"It is stable and very easy to use."
"The performance of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has been a valuable feature."
"It does not make Windows slow, as compared to all of the third part antiviruses."
"The solution provides dashboard control, so we can centrally monitor the entire status of our organization."
"The loss prevention feature would be the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Trellix Endpoint Security is containment, which takes less than a minute."
"The endpoint protection and disk encryption features are the most valuable."
"I think the costing is fine compared to other products. Cost-wise you definitely get value for your money."
"McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection is stable. We don't have any bugs being reported."
"This product has the capability to check a wide range of vulnerabilities and devices."
"It is a stable solution...The solution's technical support is good."
 

Cons

"I would like to have a dashboard that shows an overview of the results for the enterprise."
"The solution should be updated by Microsoft with new features from time to time."
"There's scanning going on that occasionally topples the memory, causing everything to freeze. This should be fixed."
"The central management console should be improved because it provides limited options to configure Windows Defender."
"The solution can be more user-friendly."
"The major area for improvement is the integration with a managed service provider."
"Integrating this with third-party systems has some complexity involved."
"My main issue with the tool is that there are too many menus. This causes a steep learning curve for those without training or unfamiliar with Defender for Endpoint. From an end-user perspective, the solution is there on the machine and does its job; it works seamlessly. However, as a security professional dealing with it behind the scenes, the learning curve can be steep, but not too steep. Still, it has taken some of my analysts up to a month to get familiar with the product."
"If there's a possibility for remote assistance or investigation support in the future, it would be beneficial. Currently, we use another remote software for such purposes. If this feature could be included in the next version, that would be an improvement. The feature is called Remote Administration. I'm somewhat satisfied, but there's an issue I recently encountered. When attempting to scan a suspected host machine, Symantec Endpoint Security did not provide any alerts. However, when we installed Malwarebytes and ran a scan, it detected a threat that wasn't identified by Symantec. We raised this concern with the team for resolution, and the investigation is still ongoing."
"Signatures to protect against new attacks."
"The endpoint has room for improvement because it's restrictive, it's very sensitive. Sometimes it can delete something that you need and so sometimes you have to disable the antivirus."
"Trellix lacked email protection when it was a McAfee product. They added this feature during the merger with FireEye, but it hasn't been fully integrated. The core features will be integrated into the next release. FireEye has several solutions for EDR and sandboxing."
"An area in need of improvement involves the overview, which usually does not enable one to get the value in reports."
"What needs improvement in Trellix Endpoint Security is the reduction of resource consumption by the scanning feature. There should be daily signature updates for protection."
"They can improve its resource consumption, such as memory, and maybe provide better or smaller updates. It always takes a lot of resources, but it has been getting better. I have been using McAfee products for the last 20 years or so, and I know it is getting better."
"The interface is complex."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Microsoft Defender ATP is expensive."
"The license for Microsoft Windows covers Microsoft Defender for Endpoint."
"I recently switched from education to private business, and all I can say is that private business licensing from Microsoft is not cheap until you hit certain quantities or scale. That does not mean that it is not comparable to other industries. It is similar pricing, but it is still crazy to me how much you pay for a client. I feel it is high, but it is in line with other vendors."
"If you don't purchase the advanced threat protection then there is no additional charge."
"The solution comes as a part of Windows 10 and it is covered under its license."
"The cost is competitive and reasonable because most of the expense is log analytics, storage, and data consumption and ingestion. These things can be throttled and controlled, so they are highly flexible. Defender has a lot of advantages over competing products."
"I'm not too familiar with costs as I'm an architect, though I know about online pricing, as I help two teams with online purchasing and procurement. Nowadays, everyone has an enterprise agreement, such as an E3 license, which we provide to our customers."
"The solutions price could be cheaper."
"There are some extra expenses for using the product, in addition to licensing related to the maintenance of the product."
"I think Trellix is more on the higher side of the market, just on a general scale, but I also think it depends on what particular package you choose."
"Its price is reasonable, but it could be made free."
"We pay 650 Rand for a license. It is a perpetual license which we normally run for two years."
"The pricing is comparable to other solutions on the market."
"The price of McAfee is pretty similar to Symantec, and there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"No comment."
"Pricing is reasonable and runs at a cost per user per year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
27%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Educational Organization
41%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface, applies behavioral-based endpoint protection and response, and includes risk-ba...
Which offers better endpoint security - Symantec or Microsoft Defender?
We use Symantec because we do not use MS Enterprise products, but in my opinion, Microsoft Defender is a superior solution. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security s...
How does Microsoft Defender for Endpoint compare with Crowdstrike Falcon?
The CrowdStrike solution delivers a lot of information about incidents. It has a very light sensor that will never push your machine hardware to "test", you don't have the usual "scan now" feature ...
How does McAfee Endpoint Security compare with MVISION?
The flexible manageability of McAfee Endpoint Security is one of our favorite aspects of this solution. You can deploy various components as desired with McAfee Endpoint Security, whereas many othe...
What do you like most about McAfee Endpoint Security?
It provides a robust defense against cybersecurity threats while offering user-friendly features like notifications and approval prompts.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for McAfee Endpoint Security?
The license costs are very reasonable, around 1,000 to 1,200 rupees per year.
 

Also Known As

Microsoft Defender ATP, Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection, MS Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Defender Antivirus
McAfee Endpoint Security, McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection, McAfee Endpoint Protection, Total Protection for Endpoint, Intel Security Total Protection for Endpoint, MCAFEE Complete Endpoint Protection
 

Learn More

 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Petrofrac, Metro CSG, Christus Health
inHouseIT, Seagate Technology
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Security and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.