Trellix Endpoint Security Reviews

My experience with McAfee is very good. They give excellent support, they are proactive to solve issues, and willing to integrate their products. Their ability to execute is very high.

Their malware detection rate is excellent for all type of devices and the anti-theft products are good and easy to use.

All the devices are controlled from one place. This gives great, easy management of security for different device vendors with a unique interface and, best of all, with a unique method.

Valuable features for us include the quality of their anti-malware detection: one interface for all devices. McAfee GW Security is also good.

In general, all the branches were very happy with them for three reasons:

• The product is good
• The product is well known
• Their marketing support is excellent

The product is evolving to give a global security solution, engaging all devices and products together under one interface. McAfee GW Security will be a game changer here.

McAfee GW Security and McAfee Child Safety need some improvement as they are relatively new.

We have been using the solution for five years. I have broad experience with McAfee’s complete endpoint protection, McAfee Child Safety, and their new McAfee GW Security protection that incorporates protection directly in the Home/SOHO Internet GateWay.

I worked as the product manager with these products at my former company's Global Security Vertical, giving service to all of our company's branches around the world.

We have experienced very high stability.

We have not encountered any issues with scalability.

The technical support is excellent.

We previously used Norton, Kaspersky, and Panda. From my point of view, the basic functionality is similar, but McAfee has a more innovative roadmap.

The initial setup was very easy.

The initial price is very good as they give good initial discounts, but it seems a little expensive once you renew the license. The price isn't very different comparing it with other Anti virus providers but it's worth it. With respect to freemium solutions, premium gives support and I personally prefer to pay for a service as no one gives anything for free.

We evaluated Norton, Kaspersky, Panda, and many others.

Even though it is a little expensive, the price is worth it. They come up with a complete home security eco-system that will unify the security under one easy interface.

Going to their new product, McAfee GW Security, security in the Internet GateWay, McAfee is clearly on the right track.

I was responsible for the introduction of this new type of products in my former company. I evaluated many brands (about ten), new startups, and traditional big security vendors. In my opinion, they have the clearest view of what has to be done now, (in the GW and in the Cloud), and what will be done in the future.

Some startups have good innovative products, but for sure lack the ability to execute that big vendors have. Big vendors have better malware detection rates, faster response to issues, etc.

Considering the exponential growth of Home IoT (most don’t have security), McAfee GW Security is, and will be, essential to stop hacking.

We are using  McAfee Endpoint Security to protect the business.

McAfee Endpoint Security is easy to use, and it integrates well.

The performance is good.

The security of this solution needs improvement.

I have been using McAfee for a couple of years.

I believe that we are using the latest version.

McAfee Endpoint Security is a stable solution. We don't have any issues with the stability of this product.

I don't have the exact count, but we have thousands of users in our organization who use  McAfee Endpoint Security.

I have not contacted technical support.

I was not involved in the installation of McAfee Endpoint Security.

Licensing is paid yearly.

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

I would rate McAfee Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide our customers with an endpoint security solution.

Its pricing needs to be improved.

The stability of this solution is good.

They are releasing new versions every month.

This solution is pretty scalable.

We have more than fifty users for this solution, and we plan to increase its usage.

Our experience is from the technical support in India, and it is good.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup for this solution is very easy. Anyone can learn the interface.

The deployment takes approximately half an hour, depending on the speed of the server, and depending on the nodes. I can manage one thousand nodes in one week.

The maintenance of this solution requires two or three people.

We used a partner to assist us with the implementation. It was our reseller, and they are good.

I think McAfee is the best solution. Anyone can use it, the protection is good, and they have all of the features. There is user protection at a nice speed.

There have been some improvements in the latest version. For example, when you log in to the older version it is very slow sometimes. With the newest version, it is like they removed some things.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for it to attack malware. 

The loss prevention feature would be the most valuable. This is a good feature but don't use it because of the complexity. 

We have a lot of problems with the user experience and it's difficult to implement. MacAfee's better than the ancient anti-virus solutions but it's a little slow to resolve. Many files with malware were destroyed through the network, and MacAfee doesn't detect anything.

They should improve the time of response, the time of the detection of malware, and the installation of the service.

The features we would want a good endpoint solution to contain are: 

• Multi-operative system
• Better performance
• Integration with browsers
• Firewall control 
• Vulnerability detections
• Threat protections
• Malware detection
• Detection of patterns of behavior
• Process exception
• Automatic authorizations
• Control of application reliable
• The quarantine of a compromised device

Stability is good, but not the best. 

The technical features and price are important for us when choosing a solution. 

The initial setup was complex. 

I would rate this solution a seven over ten. It's not a ten because of the time it takes to detect an issue, technical support and because I have no control with the partner. I know that the office that manages the contract has had some problems because of the reports.

The reporting capabilities are a valuable feature. This enables more visibility on our network.

The DAC (Dynamic Application Containment) component of this product needs improvement.

It is a stable solution. 

It is easy to manage, and there is an awareness of being able to scale out. 

I have not used tech support for this solution. 

The initial setup was very straightforward. 

This product is costly.

For me, the most important criteria in choosing a solution is the performance. I must seriously consider whether the solution is able to adapt to the environment. 

We primarily use this solution for antivirus and malware protection. 

You can integrate this endpoint protection with a specific business process that you may want to link to the process of the antivirus. It has the capability to custom define user-defined fields. 

One of the drawbacks to the solution is that it is not 100% secure. Sometimes it fails. Another thing we have noticed is that it is not easy to get all of the navigation information from a user. There is definitely room for improvement.

The stability is 80-90%. It is fine.

It has all of the architecture of the solution, for distribution points that will allow you to manage the network traffic. It allows you to find different routes based on actual distributed servers or endpoints. 

We have a very skilled tech support technologist who helps us with our inquiries.

It was not really complex, but, there are many ways to customize this solution. This customization takes some time. 

There is not one feature in particular that is more valuable than another for us. It is generally a valuable tool that helps us with our security.

We can easily renew our subscription and update the product. When we update it, it automatically removes viruses from most of the infected systems.

They could improve it by providing better manageability for administrators. I need to spend too much time on this right now.

We've been using it for three years.

We have had an issue updating it. I have applied update ePO 5.3.1, but it shows the update version is ePO 5.3.0.

There have been no stability issues.

We have had no issues scaling it.

Customer service responds well.

Technical service is also responsive.

I used a different product in a previous position.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented it via a vendor team.

The pricing needs to be lowered as we find it to be high. We're just a small-to-medium sized company.

You should use a licensed version of an anti-virus, preferably McAfee.

I am not liberty to describe our use cases, as this information is confidential. 

The primary reason the solution is good is because of its ease-of-use. It is easy to handle and create policies. 

While I cannot recall anything specific at the moment, there are many areas of the solution that I wish to see improved. 

We have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for more than three years.

The solution is very stable. 

The initial setup was very straightforward.