Trellix Endpoint Security Reviews

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. 

We are using the latest version at the moment because I'm managed by the MVISION tenants.

In the past, many people had issues with the utilization of detections and resources. ENS is actually very good for detection. When properly configured, especially when the prevention feature is activated, it integrates very well with the ATP, in respect of the endpoint. ATP offers very good protection and is a rich solution which helps to remove ransomware. I've been using the product for a while now and been able to secure a lot of environmental ransomware attacks, as well as some others, by integrating the ATP with the ENS. 

It is of primary importance that the solution does not cripple my system. When an endpoint is sitting on one's computer a struggle ensues involving resources, since the endpoint is actually scanning. At present, it either does not do so or is not noticeable. The detection rate is very high and one can be certain that he is not getting false positives, since he can see if the policy is properly configured. 

The detection is great and the solution is constantly improving. 

It would be nice if the solution were to allow not just on-cloud management, but on-premises, as well. 

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for a couple of years. I started with Virus Scan and moved to MVISION when it was introduced. I used ENS when it was made available. While I cannot remember for certain, I believe I have been using the solution since 2015 or 2016. I still use it. 

The solution is very stable. Proper configuration means that we have not had issues with the stability. When all is said and done, the landscape is shifting towards one involving EDR, which is necessary for one to feel he has complete endpoint protection. 

The solution is scalable. 

While there is a need to utilize technical support, I feel it to be fair. Overall, support will point one in a certain, or appropriate, direction, although they will occasionally ask that the person solve the problem on his own. The process may take longer if the issue involves the product. Proper escalation can shorten the resolution process. While I have occasionally had to solve the problem by myself, more often than not the support is very helpful and reliable, especially of late. 

The deployment is simple and very straightforward, including when one wishes to deploy in the cloud.

Deployment can be handled on one's own. Most deployments are the same. When deploying in the cloud, there is only a need to click several times on the link that is sent. There's nothing to it. Anybody can actually do the installation. It's very straightforward.

We are distributors although, as an engineer, I handle everything, including integration. 

McAfee's prices are flexible and can be quite competitive, although there are other solutions that are even more so. Most end-users don't focus on which solution is better, but on which one is most cost-effective. 

Our customers must pay for the licensing involved in using the solution, which they do so annually. Yet, the majority of our customers deploy the solution on-premises, which means their licenses are perpetual. There is still a need to pay for support, however, and this must be renewed annually. 

The solution does a fine job of integration. 

It is deployed in the cloud. 

My organization is very big. Like I said, we're systems integrators. As we are a distribution company, I am in a position to speak from a technical point of view. I've actually seen environments that reach 16,000. I did the deployment for a bank in Ghana, which is under the management of the Pan-African Bank and is responsible for management throughout all of Africa, save for Nigeria. This involved around 15,000 nodes. There is another bank in Nigeria with between 4,000 to 6,000 nodes and still others with around 12,000. 

I would definitely recommend this solution to other users. Leaving aside the fact that I sell this solution, when it comes to endpoint security solutions the world over, McAfee is one of the best, if not the best. 

The product is installed in the center and we install a product in it and give it to our customers.

The solution is pretty stable and reliable.

The product is very flexible.

It's easy to use.

There is scalability available. 

It would be nice if the solution was a bit more stable. 

I've been using the solution for a number of years at this point.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The product can scale. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

We have a few hundred users that are on the solution. 

We haven't required any help from technical support so far. I've never actually been in contact with them.

We are just using McAfee. We don't use any other solution. 

I did not handle the installation. McAfee is already installed in the servers and then we or the customers get the servers. Therefore, we don't have to actually do anything regarding McAfee. It's already installed in there.

We purchased the enterprise edition.

The payment part is handled from the management side. We don't do anything regarding payment. Therefore, I can't speak to exact pricing.

We did not evaluate any other solutions before taking on this solution.

We are a customer and an end-user.

We are likely using the latest version of the solution, however, I cannot speak to the exact version number. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been mostly happy with its capabilities. 

I'd recommend the product to other users and companies. 

We use it for all Windows and MAC clients. We use it for endpoint protection, DLP, and disk encryption. We are using the latest version.

The endpoint protection and disk encryption features are the most valuable.

It didn't work well for some of the use cases. We have different use cases for each entity. 

Their support is also not good and needs improvement.

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for almost three years.

Only the endpoint is stable. There are still a few things that need to be done in DLP.

It can scale. We have around 10K users who use it on a daily basis. 

Their support is not good. It needs to be improved.

We used Symantec previously. They didn't have a suite, and I wanted a suite that can give me a single control panel to manage my endpoint protection, DLP, and disk encryption. I wanted to use only a single agent with different modules so that I don't have to worry about multiple things.

It was not that simple. I would say it was moderate. It took more than three months to stabilize.

We used a partner integrator. We maintain it on our own. 

It is not that expensive. There is no additional cost. We got the entire bundle together.

I would not recommend this solution because a lot of new-age solutions are available in the market. These solutions are better than McAfee Endpoint Security and can do a better job.

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

The fact that the three components have been provided under one platform helps to simply perform product management.

Also, the virus definition file size is 40% smaller, which reduces the amount of bandwidth required to update all the endpoints.

There are three valuable components to Endpoint Security 10.1: First, there's threat prevention, which is for anti-virus and anti-malware detection. Second, there's firewall, which replaces the Windows firewall when activated. Third, there's web control which is used for endpoint web filtering.

The threat prevention feature is the most valuable because it provides protection against malware.

I would like the product deployment to be made simpler. The current deployment requires creating tasks to install each component.

The product is quite stable. We haven't had any issues with instability.

The scalability is great. We've been able to scale it for our needs.

Intel Security technical support is very efficient, although the wait times on the customer support line can be quite long.

I previously used Kaspersky. However, the management console does not match up to the functionality of the ePolicy orchestrator management console provided by Intel Security.

The setup was very straightforward. The EPO server deployed the McAfee agent and then we were able to deploy Endpoint Security.

Implementation was done through the vendor. My advice is to ensure all the requirements that are provided prior to implementation to avoid any delays.

The return on investment has been very encouraging. Ask the vendor to give you as much information as possible on all the suites so you can get a package that suites your environment.

Endpoint Protection 10.1 is a very complete endpoint protection solution that gives complete protection for endpoints. It is easy to deploy and can be a very useful endpoint protection suite for small, medium, and large-scale environments.

The package of protection that it provides is useful. It has antivirus, malware protection, VPN, and a whole bunch of other features.

It is just there in the background and does its job. Every once in a while, it reminds me that it is doing its job.

They can make it free, but that's not going to happen.

I have been using this solution for about a year. It seems to be the current version.

So far I have no issues. It is very stable, and does not tale a lot of CPU or memory resources, which was a problem in older products.

I am using it on a personal computer, so scalability is not an issue.

I have not used their support.

Its setup is very easy and straightforward.

Its price is reasonable. Setup was easy.

I would advise others to get the most comprehensive protection that they can. For me, it meant McAfee, but there are other good solutions around.

I would rate McAfee Endpoint Security an eight out of 10.

This is part of our network security solution. We have it running on different servers and workstations that are on different platforms.

McAfee EndPoint Security has a lot of good features that work well if they are implemented properly.

This solution is difficult to implement. There are lots of features but it has to be implemented the right way.

I would like this solution to do what Palo Alto traps does because I would only need to run this one product.

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for perhaps the last ten years.

It is stable, once it is configured and set up properly.

The technical support is good but the local people are bad.

On the workstation, the initial setup is easy.

For the server, it takes a long time for your people to implement it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Firstly, the Real-Time Protect and the dynamic application containment, are two great features out there. The endpoint features are also good. The new version is quite good as compared to the older version and interface. It's a replica of the VAC. It's good.

The solution could use better updates and fewer bugs.

It's quite stable. There are no performance issues or there is no concern that we have received so far. That's good.

It's easy to scale, but it depends upon your skillset as well. So if you have a good skill set, you can manage each and everything very easily.

For technical support, it depends upon which region you're connecting with. Most of the time, if you're in the Middle East and if you try to get the support it's really bad support. When you are in Asian countries, you get good support because of the experience in the region. For the US and UK, they have good support centers. So there is no issue with that.

The initial setup is straightforward, not complex.

We implemented the solution on our own.

For performance, they have introduced a new feature. McAfee decides what they want to scan and it reduces the performance of the system. So generally what happens is when McAfee scans a file, it stores the files in the cache. Next time, if there are any changes in the file, then only it will scan the file. Otherwise, it will not scan it. That's how they have increased in the performance inside.

I would rate this product eight out of 10.

In new units, the initial agenda, they are changing a lot of things and there are lots of bugs we normally we didn't use to see. Again, we had to rely on some updates, and the way that it appears, the mechanism, they have changed it. So lots of things involved like bugs and issues related to the different parts of the product are challenging. Otherwise, it's good.