We performed a comparison between McAfee MVISION Endpoint vs Trellix Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Of the two solutions, Trellix Endpoint Security is the more popular choice because not only is deployment easy, but it has an appealing set of product features and seems to have more powerful detection capabilities than McAfee MVISION.
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The solution is reliable."
"The central management console is powerful. You can manage endpoints, DLP, encryption, and all the other features from a single console."
"The installation is pretty straightforward."
"The new central console is better than the earlier one."
"The most valuable feature of Trellix Endpoint Security is containment, which takes less than a minute."
"Communication with all Mcafee products (also 3rd parties) by DXL infrastructure."
"It has been protecting us for many years, and we hope it will continue to do so for many years to come."
"The product has a robust reporting feature"
"The installation phase of the solution was very easy."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The threat scanning is excellent. It uses predictive technology and I can utilize attack data to help us fine-tune our systems and network infrastructure. This protects us against current and future attacks."
"The most valuable feature is the integration between environments."
"Provides protection against threats."
"The seamless deployment is very valuable."
"The most valuable network security feature is the network sandbox solution. This sandbox feature works on traffic flow."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"The support needs improvement."
"The software download features could stand improvement."
"The initial setup isn't so easy. You need to know what you are doing."
"There are certain shortcomings in the features concerning DLP in Trellix, where certain additions must be made in the future."
"We know that McAfee isn't the best antivirus and it can't protect us 100%, although we are okay with the level of protection that it gives us."
"The DAC (Dynamic Application Containment) component of this product needs improvement."
"Signatures to protect against new attacks."
"There is room to improve with scalability."
"The price of the solution is high in Asia."
"The central monitoring dashboard needs improvement."
"We'd like better UI on the management screen."
"The integration and display of the dashboards have to be done better."
"The product needs to reduce the usage of RAM and CPU."
"Most of these types of solutions including others, such as Carbon Black and FortiEDR, all have the same features. However, Carbon Black is the leader when it comes to being robust and user-friendly and this solution should improve in those areas to stay more competitive."
"Sometimes, one might face issues with the scalability of the product. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
"They have something called Managed Detection and Response. They get intel from their customers, and that intel is shared with the rest of FireEye's customers. I want to subscribe to their intel, but that is not available to us."
"The reports need more development. They need more details on the reports and more details taking the executive view into consideration."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 95 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trend Micro Deep Security and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), Open EDR and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Trellix Endpoint Security vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.
It depends on what you want to achieve. With McAfee ENS you have complete coverage through McAfee solutions, that is, it has an AV engine (threat Protection), you have Advance Threat Protection (ATP), light control over browsers, and a firewall.
With MVISION Endpoint you add being able to manage Microsoft Defender from the MVISION ePO or EPO on-premise console. But the AV engine is Defender, not McAfee. So you depend on the potential and configuration you make of Defender.