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

RiskIQ Illuminate vs Trellix Network Detection and Response comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

RiskIQ Illuminate
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Attack Surface Management (ASM) (19th)
Trellix Network Detection a...
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (9th), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

RiskIQ Illuminate and Trellix Network Detection and Response aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. RiskIQ Illuminate is designed for Attack Surface Management (ASM) and holds a mindshare of 1.9%, down 6.5% compared to last year.
Trellix Network Detection and Response, on the other hand, focuses on Advanced Threat Protection (ATP), holds 5.4% mindshare, down 8.2% since last year.
Attack Surface Management (ASM)
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

SimonClark - PeerSpot reviewer
Oct 4, 2021
Able to discover unpatched servers, offers good stability, and scales very well
Working for FortNet UK, we advised customers regarding their specific security challenges and would recommend RiskIQ when appropriate. We had numerous customers from industries such as retail, media, hospitality, aviation, and finance. Attack Surface Management provided our customers with…
BiswabhanuPanda - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 4, 2024
Offers in-depth investigation capabilities, integrates well and smoothly transitioned from a lower-capacity appliance to a higher one
The in-depth investigation capabilities are a major advantage. When the system flags something as malicious, it provides a packet capture of that activity within the environment. That helps my team quickly identify additional context that most other tools wouldn't offer – like source IP or base64 encoded data. We can also see DNS requests and other details that aren't readily available in solutions like Check Point or others that we've tried. The detection itself is solid, and their sandboxing is powerful. There's a learning curve – you need a strong grasp of OS-level changes, process forking, registry changes, and the potential impact of those. But with that knowledge, the level of information Trellix provides is far greater than what we've seen elsewhere. The real-time response capability of Trellix has been quite effective, although it's not very fast. The key is this solution's concept of 'preference zero.' They don't immediately act on a zero-day. For example, the solution has seen a piece of malware for the first time. It'll let it in, then do sandboxing. Maybe after four or five minutes, it identifies that specific file's DNX Secure Store as malicious. At that point, they update the static analysis engine, and it gets detected if anything else tries to download the same file. There is that initial 'preference zero' concept, like with Panda. You may not hold traffic in the network. That's standard in the industry; we don't do much about it. To address that, we also have endpoint solutions. We use SentinelOne in our environment, which helps us identify threats like Western Bureaus and others.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is stable with 12 years of established historical data."
"Over the thirteen years of using the product, we have not experienced a single compromise in our environment. During the COVID period, we faced numerous DDoS attacks, and the tool proved highly effective in mitigating these threats."
"The solution can scale."
"The product is very easy to configure."
"The most valuable feature is MVX, which tests all of the files that have been received in an email."
"It is stable and quite protective. It has a lot of features to scan a lot of malicious things and vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature is the view into the application."
"Initially, we didn't have much visibility around what is occurring at our applications lower level. For instance, if we are exposed to any malicious attacks or SQL injections. But now we've integrated FireEye with Splunk, so now we get lots of triggers based on policy content associated with FireEye. The solution has allowed for growth and improvement in our information security and security operations teams."
"Support is very helpful and responsive."
 

Cons

"A low-cost service to evaluate the risk score of a supply chain would be very helpful."
"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."
"It would be a good idea if we could get an option to block based upon the content of an email, or the content of a file attachment."
"Management of the appliance could be greatly improved."
"Stability issues manifested in terms of throughput maximization."
"The solution's support needs to improve their support."
"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."
"It is very expensive, the price could be better."
"We'd like the potential for better scaling."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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."
"We're partners with Cisco so we get a reasonable price. It's cheaper than Palo Alto in terms of licensing."
"Its price is a bit high. A small customer cannot buy it. Its licensing is on a yearly basis."
"When I compare this solution to its competitors in the market, I find that it is a little expensive."
"The tool is a bit pricey."
"The pricing is fair, a little expensive, but fair. We've evaluated other products, and they're similarly priced."
"FireEye is comparable to other products, such as HX, but seems expensive. It may cause us to look at other products in the market."
"The user fee is not as high but the maintenance fee is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Attack Surface Management (ASM) solutions are best for your needs.
800,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Media Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about FireEye Network Security?
We wanted to cross-reference that activity with the network traffic just to be sure there was no lateral movement. With Trellix, we easily confirmed that there was no lateral network involvement an...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for FireEye Network Security?
The pricing is fair, a little expensive, but fair. We've evaluated other products, and they're similarly priced. It's a bit on the expensive side, but we don't want to compromise with cheap, less r...
What needs improvement with FireEye Network Security?
The solution's support needs to improve their support.
 

Also Known As

RiskIQ Digital Threat Management
FireEye Network Security, FireEye
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DocuSign, Outbrain, The Economist Group, Rackspace, The Citizen Lab
FFRDC, Finansbank, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Investis, Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, Bank of Thailand, City of Miramar, Citizens National Bank, D-Wave Systems
Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, Darktrace, Trend Micro and others in Attack Surface Management (ASM). Updated: August 2024.
800,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.