Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Reviews

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.

The most valuable feature is the integration between environments.

Something that needs to improve is the interface. I would also like to see simple processing and reporting online. 

The stability of the solution was not very good.

We had some issues with the scalability but it was taken care of. It can be improved, however. 

I will rate this solution an eight out of ten. In the next version I would like to see an improvement in the scalability and stability. 

I used it in my previous company. From an end-user perspective, I was the manager of the Cyber Defense Center that was in charge of the whole deployment and daily operations. I was using it as a Site Media Operations Manager.

The response part of EDR was most valuable. We used that to separate the endpoint from the network. We utilized the solution during the instant response. We were also utilizing advanced malware detection capabilities, but we benefited the most from its help with the response.

In some cases, the detection part was not accurate enough. We opened a few cases for the vendor to help us with some miscategorized findings on the endpoints. There were some false positive detections, and we had to work with the vendor to get them tested. We even had some incidents that were not detected. It was a black box type of solution for us.

I used it for one year. 

I have no complaints. I would rate them a five out of five.

It was a new deployment. We previously didn't have any similar solution in that company.

It was pretty straightforward. Its deployment took half a month. It was quite a big deployment. We had quite a lot of end-user devices. We deployed it for 10,000 devices. We had around 20 security operations staff members at that time.

It was driven by an in-house engineering team, but we leveraged some integrator companies as well. We had three members in the engineering team who took care of the deployment and everyday operations. During the deployment phase, we got help from integrators. So, we had two additional FTEs during the six-month implementation period.

In terms of ROI, if one is the best, I would rate it a two out of five. We had some false positive detections. We even had some incidents that were not detected. We did not get the expected level of visibility through FireEye.

It was an annual fee. There was just one overall fee.

It was a very hard decision to make. We did a comparison with some other competitor products. One of them was Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR, which was the biggest competitor at that time. We even checked Microsoft ATP and McAfee. So, we compared a couple of products before selecting FireEye.

Organizations trying to or going for the FireEye solution should understand that they won't be able to see under the hood or what is happening within the product. FireEye is quite a black box solution. Understanding why certain findings got a particular verdict is not easy. If you want well-automated operations and you don't have an advanced operations team that wants to check the verdicts and understand how the product is working and making decisions, then it is good for you. If you have proper engineering skills on board and your operations teams want to understand the basic logic within the product that they are using on a daily basis, this might not be the best product for you.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

We primarily use the solution for security. We use it to detect threats and cyber attacks.

The product is easy to use.

It's a stable solution with good performance. 

The scalability is good.

The installation process is very straightforward.

We would like to solution to offer better security. 

I've been dealing with the solution for years.

The product is quite stable. The performance has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. We find the product to be quite reliable.

The solution is capable of scaling. It's not a problem. We have the solution on around 300 endpoints. 

We have around 150 to 160 users on the solution currently.

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

I've never contacted technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

It's not a difficult solution to set up. It's pretty straightforward and simple. 

I don't recall how much time did it took. It was one of my team members that actually was occupied with the task. It was a while ago as well. I don't know anymore.

We worked with external consultants. I don't know exactly what the scope was, however. 

We bought a four-year license for the product. We're under a contract with them for that amount of time. 

We did not evaluate any other EDR products before choosing FireEye. 

We are just customers and end-users of the product. We don't have a special business relationship with the company. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using. I don't know the version number off-hand. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

The primary use case is to locate unknown malware.

The solution made it possible for us to have visibility into the amount of malware and threats which were coming into our company.

The solution has helped to increase staff productivity.

It is very valuable in finding out unknown malware.

I hope the solution can be used in cloud systems going forward.

The stability is not so bad, but also not so good.

The scalability is good.

We have our technical teams who can do PoCs. Also, our local vendor can support us.

We did not use a solution prior to this one.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We used a reseller who was good for the first stage of the implementation. However, for the operational phase, they were not so good. The QA time takes too much time. Their response time was lacking.

We have seen a 50 percent decrease in the meantime when detecting a response to threats.

We did look at other vendors, like Cylance. We chose FireEye because they have a long history, which results in stability.

First, implement it. Then, see what is going on in your company. You will see that there are many risks which you have never seen.

The product is not bad, but there may be somethings that need to be modified. The solution is very precise for detecting risks, but the operational quality has some issues.