Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Reviews

The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities.

The way that signatures work when using this solution could be improved. They could be more user friendly. We would like the ability to select a client's signature from a menu or file share to save time. 

FireEye allows three releases per day which are automated. If the automation fails for some reason, the release fails. FireEye does not allow manual releases. This is why we are moving away from using this solution. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

The customer service is good. 

Neutral

I have previously used Symantec at a different company. I think Symantec is the best solution overall. 

The initial setup was quite complex. It took three months for us to roll out the solution. 

The suitability of FireEye for a business depends on the business itself. 
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

We're using MVISION Endpoint for the protection of our endpoint devices.

What I like most about McAfee MVISION Endpoint is that it's very user-friendly. You do need some knowledge on how to navigate the portal, but as soon as you've gained that knowledge, navigation will no longer be an issue.

I have no complaints about McAfee MVISION Endpoint. For me, the product is perfect the way it is. It's great right now, and it's doing good as it is.

So far, McAfee MVISION Endpoint ticks off all of our boxes, but its pricing could always be better.

I started using MVISION Endpoint last year. It was preceded by the MVISION ePO.

McAfee MVISION Endpoint is a stable product.

McAfee MVISION Endpoint has no issues in terms of scalability. You just need money to make scaling up possible.

The support for McAfee MVISION Endpoint is okay. I have no complaints about it.

On a scale of one to five, where one is bad and five is good, I would rate support for the product as four out of five.

The initial setup for McAfee MVISION Endpoint is pretty easy.

We used a consultant for the deployment of McAfee MVISION Endpoint.

I don't have information on ROI from McAfee MVISION Endpoint because a separate unit takes care of those calculations.

Pricing for McAfee MVISION Endpoint is not very good, and I would rate its cost three out of five, though I won't be able to mention how much its actual price is.

There were other solutions in use, but that was before I joined my department, so I don't know which solutions were used before my company went with McAfee MVISION Endpoint.

I have some experience with McAfee MVISION Endpoint, and I'm currently using it. I can't remember the exact version of the solution which I'm using, but it's the latest version.

My company is a customer of McAfee MVISION Endpoint.

My company is a telco, so I don't have the exact user count, but it's surely more than a hundred. All roles within my company use the product, even people at the highest levels.

At the moment, there's no plan to increase usage of McAfee MVISION Endpoint within the company.

My advice for people looking into implementing McAfee MVISION Endpoint is to use the demo, roll it out within your organization, utilize its functionalities, and let it work for you.

In terms of rating, I'm giving McAfee MVISION Endpoint a solid eight because it does what's needed and it works, so no complaints.

We are using this solution for endpoint security against cyber attacks.

FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others.

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.

I have been using FireEye Endpoint Security for a couple of months.

This solution is scalable. However, it could improve to be able to be handle large-scale operations. The OS most systems are running I am not sure it can handle a lot of nodes but many companies are coming out with cloud options that should be able to manage much more nodes.

Technical support can take some time to respond on the first level. They could improve the speed at which they resolve and handle support.

We have an administrator and engineer that does the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

I have evaluated Carbon Black and FortiEDR.

I would not recommend this solution to others. However, if you have a small budget then this solution could be a second option.

I rate FireEye Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.

We want more protection for our servers. We would like to know if a real incident or something compromising is happening. Therefore, we have deployed this EDR solution.

The exploit guard and malware protection features are very useful. The logon tracker feature is also very useful. 

They have also given new modules such as logout backup, process backup. We ordered these modules from the FireEye market place, and we have installed these modules. We are currently exploring these features. 

The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux.

We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap.

We have been using FireEye Endpoint Security for the past two years.

The current version is more stable than the previous ones.

It is easily scalable.

My experience was 50/50. Sometimes, it was good. Sometimes, they took some time.

We were using McAfee AV. We switched to FireEye Endpoint Security because we had some performance issues with McAfee AV. We are not facing those issues with FireEye Endpoint Security.

It is easy to deploy. It took us a month to deploy. 

Deployment may take more time based on the architecture and the environment. With some vendors, it took us some time to analyze because there were things that we wanted to monitor, which depended on the production. Therefore, we installed it step by step, not in one step at full force.

If you are deploying on Windows or Mac, there will be minimal issues, and you can go for this solution. With Linux, you need to understand a few features. What you expect from Windows and Mac is not available in Linux. If your main technologies are open source, then probably rethink about FireEye Endpoint Security. You can go for FireEye Endpoint Security after they have the same capabilities in Linux. Most of the features are there in their roadmap.

We mostly faced issues with Linux support. In the past, we also had issues related to communication between an agent and an endpoint where they didn't communicate, the communication got stopped automatically, or the data communication time didn't sync properly. In the later versions, they improved and resolved these issues.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. It's gradually growing, and a few features that we require are not there. If these requirements are satisfied, I would rate them nine or ten.

We moved on to FireEye HX as an endpoint solution. Mainly, this is the next-generation endpoint protection where it protects the endpoints not just from the office network but also from roaming. Its capability seeing today's threat actors is the best one.

This gives us a more secure and completely scalable zero-day model security product to the endpoint. We manage not only the software but also the next-gen AV.

All the features of HX give the administrator control over the managed devices:

• Managing is easy
• The different threat actor based signature
• Behavioural analysis
• Malware protection
• Zero-day protection

IOC based detections are really the best ones. However, the enterprise search option is a hunting option given to the admin.

• AV management based on manual scan
• Manual scan feature is not easily done
• A long way of setting hostname set, and
• Scheduling over policy which is time taking and I don't feel comfortable. 

Excellent.

Performance wise, it's good. The agent does not consume much process or CPU.

Great support, a well technology-minded guy with a proactive and ready-to-resolve easy attitude.

The deployment was easy.

In-house, and sometimes getting help from the product vendor.

Though it's expensive, it gives the security required to be trusted with the product.

We just run it in the background and potentially scan any wireless or malicious file. It must be the same setup.

Maybe the performance could be better. I noticed that it slows down a bit when I start it up in the morning.

We have had this solution for over three years now. It's enterprise security. We use the latest version. 

It's stable. It's just that I don't have to use it very often. I can go weeks without having to deal with any issues. If something does pop up, it's usually pretty easy to fix. I just let the people who know what they're doing handle it.

It's scalable enough for our needs. I don't see any problems right now. There are about 55 users in two branches of our company.

We haven't needed to use tech support. We are an IT company, so we usually take care of our own devices.

The setup is not that complex. It takes five to ten minutes to set up. It's mostly this is our old devices.

It's a self-deployable solution, so we don't need any technical staff for deployment.

We do need to pay for a license.

Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten. 

We use McAfee MVISION Endpoint to protect our environment.

I am satisfied with this solution.

The performance is good. 

I would like to see more automation.

I have been working with McAfee MVISION Endpoint for at least ten years.

McAfee MVISION Endpoint is a stable solution.

In our company, we have 650 users.

At this time, there are no plans to increase our usage.

Technical support is good.

I did not complete the installation myself.

We have a team of five to maintain and deploy this solution.

I had some assistance from a technician.

Licensing fees are paid yearly.

We are currently, exploring other solutions.

I would recommend this solution for others who are interested in using it.

I would rate the McAfee MVISION Endpoint solution an eight out of ten.

McAfee MVISION Endpoint is used for endpoint security across all platforms, including mobile and desktop users. 

All endpoint-related activities for which the company has a charter.

In my opinion, it's a pretty good product.

I have not received any complaints about the performance.

I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use. We are looking forward to having more unified management.

We have been using McAfee MVISION Endpoint for one year. We have recently implemented it.

McAfee MVISION Endpoint has been stable.

We have not yet scaled it, but I believe that it is scalable.

Our organization has 7,000 users.

I'm not sure if the technical teams have done so, but I haven't contacted technical support.

We are using Cisco Umbrella, as well as McAfee.

Our own team performed the installation. I didn't hear any complaints, so I guess it's pretty simple.

To deploy and maintain, we have a team of two administrators and one manager.

It is based on an annual subscription.

I would definitely recommend McAfee MVISION Endpoint because it is cloud-based app management and requires little maintenance.

I would rate, McAfee MVISION Endpoint, an eight out of ten.