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.
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The DLP and user interface are the most valuable feature."
"Dynamic Application Containment."
"Anyone can use it, the protection is good, and they have all of the features."
"Communication with all Mcafee products (also 3rd parties) by DXL infrastructure."
"The endpoint security, antivirus and firewall are the most valuable features of Trellix Endpoint Security."
"It provides a lot of information and great visibility, with really great options for managing the environment."
"The loss prevention feature would be the most valuable."
"We really like the dashboard from Trellix and we've found that it's pretty informative."
"The agents are easy to deploy."
"It is very valuable in finding out unknown malware."
"The investigation and forensic analysis have been most helpful."
"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 tool has contributed to improving our security posture. While it's just one part of our overall solution, it plays a crucial role. As we continue to evolve, we anticipate it becoming even more important alongside other aspects like network behavior and additional metrics."
"The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP."
"The platform’s most valuable features are ease of use, integration, and deployment."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"Detections could be improved."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"There is room to improve with scalability."
"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."
"When it runs in the background of the endpoint, the devices get slowed down for some applications."
"Trying to move away from the signature model for antivirus and malware blocking is something that would be nice. Instead of having to update every day, which is signature-based, moving to more of a kernel or architecture-based model would probably be beneficial."
"There are two main areas that require improvement. One is the size of the packages. Although I'll admit manageability is good, if I want to deploy, let's say just the antivirus or just the firewall, each of those package sizes are quite large. They are sometimes as big as 200MB or 250MB. When I have operations in remote areas where connectivity is always poor, it's difficult. To deploy such a package in a remote location over the internet or something like that is always challenging."
"An area in need of improvement involves the overview, which usually does not enable one to get the value in reports."
"The solution's technical support should be improved since we faced a lot of issues with the support. There were some delays in responses from the technical support."
"The initial setup is complex. It is a very complex product. You must have experience with it."
"There should be better integration between the ePolicy Orchestrator and FireEye console. The integration of both consoles should be better."
"The central monitoring dashboard needs improvement."
"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."
"The customization capabilities of the solution are an area where it lacks, so it would be great if our company could customize the solution to meet the demands of our customers."
"The solution lacks device control."
"The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve by an overall simplification of the solution."
"The product needs to reduce the usage of RAM and CPU."
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.