We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Trellix Endpoint Security users like the ePolicy Orchestrator, the solution’s robust central management console. Trellix could improve by reducing resource usage, enhancing stability, and making the solution more user-friendly. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is highly regarded for its automated processes, advanced threat analysis, and extensive security measures, including protection against ransomware and access controls. Microsoft Defender for Cloud could use enhancements in automation and ease of use.
Service and Support: Some users say Trellix support is helpful and responsive, while others believe there is room for improvement in communication and resolution times. Some Defender for Cloud users reported positive experiences with Microsoft, while others complained that the solution's outsourced support lacked technical knowledge.
Ease of Deployment: Setting up Trellix Endpoint Security is simple if the user has some expertise. The initial setup of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is described as straightforward, but the deployment time may vary depending on specific requirements.
Pricing: Trellix Endpoint Security’s pricing is considered flexible, competitive, and about average compared to other solutions. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is in the mid-to-high pricing tier. While some users find it expensive, others believe it offers good value.
ROI: Users reported saving time by implementing Trellix Endpoint Security. Microsoft Defender for Cloud streamlines security tasks and saves users money by consolidating various solutions.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Microsoft Defender for Cloud over Trellix Endpoint Security. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is praised for its automation and threat analysis capabilities. Users appreciate the convenience of managing everything from a single portal. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is generally considered cost-effective, while opinions of Trellix Endpoint Security's pricing are mixed, with some saying it is on the higher side.
"The most valuable features of PingSafe are the asset inventory and issue indexing."
"We liked the search bar in PingSafe. It is a global search. We were able to get some insights from there."
"It is advantageous in terms of time-saving and cost reduction."
"We use the infrastructure as code scanning, which is good."
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"The solution's most valuable features are its ability to detect vulnerabilities inside AWS resources and its ability to rescan after a specific duration set by the administrator."
"Cloud Native Security's best feature is its ability to identify hard-coded secrets during pull request reviews."
"I did a lot of research before signing up and doing the demo. They have a good reputation as far as catching threats early on."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the vulnerability assessments and the glossary of compliance."
"The first valuable feature was the fact that it gave us a list of everything that users were surfing on the web. Having the list, we could make decisions about those sites."
"The vulnerability reporting is helpful. When we initially deployed Defender, it reported many more threats than we currently see. It gave us insight into areas we had not previously considered, so we knew where we needed to act."
"It has seamless integration with any of the services I mentioned, on Azure, such as IaaS platforms, virtual machines, applications, or databases, because it's an in-house product from Microsoft within the Azure ecosystem."
"The solution is very easy to deploy."
"It isn't a highly complex solution. It's something that a lot of analysts can use. Defender gives you a broad overview of what's happening in your environment, and it's a great solution if you're a Microsoft shop."
"With respect to improving our security posture, it helps us to understand where we are in terms of compliance. We can easily know when we are below the standard because of the scores it calculates."
"The solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"The initial setup of Trellix Endpoint Security was straightforward."
"Some of McAfee Endpoint Security's main features are it has benefits over normal conventional antivirus solutions because it works much faster."
"It has been protecting us for many years, and we hope it will continue to do so for many years to come."
"The product is fairly reliable."
"The DLP and user interface are the most valuable feature."
"The solution is stable."
"Their malware detection rate is excellent for all type of devices and the anti-theft products are good and easy to use."
"Communication with all Mcafee products (also 3rd parties) by DXL infrastructure."
"Bugs need to be disclosed quickly."
"In terms of ease of use, initially, it is a bit confusing to navigate around, but once you get used to it, it becomes easier."
"One of our use cases was setting up a firewall for our endpoints, specifically for our remote users... We were hoping to utilize SentinelOne's firewall capabilities, but there were limitations on how many URLs we could implement. Because of those limitations on the number of URLs, we weren't able to utilize that feature in the way we had hoped to."
"In addition to our telecom and Slack channels, it would be helpful to receive Cloud Native Security security notifications in Microsoft Teams."
"The Automation tab is an add-on that doesn’t work properly. They provide a list of scripts that don’t work and I have asked support to assist but they won’t help. When running on various endpoints the script doesn’t work and if it does, it’s only a couple. There are a lot of useful scripts that would be beneficial to run forensics, event logs, and process lists running on the endpoint."
"I used to work on AWS. At times, I would generate a normal bug in my system, and then I would check PingSafe. The alert used to come after about three and a half hours. It used to take that long to generate the alert about the vulnerability in my system. If a hacker attacks a system and PingSafe takes three to four hours to generate an alert, it will not be beneficial for the company. It would be helpful if we get the alert in five to ten minutes."
"Cloud Native Security's reporting could be better. We are unable to see which images are impacted. Several thousand images have been deployed, so if we can see some application-specific information in the dashboard, we can directly send that report to the team that owns the application. We'd also like the option to download the report from the portal instead of waiting for the report to be sent to our email."
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
"Azure is a complex solution. You have so many moving parts."
"There is no perfect product in the world and there are always features that can be added."
"Most of the time, when we log into the support, we don't get a chance to interact with Microsoft employees directly, except having it go to outsource employees of Microsoft. The initial interaction has not been that great because outsourced companies cannot provide the kind of quality or technical expertise that we look for. We have a technical manager from Microsoft, but they are kind of average unless we make noise and ask them to escalate. We then can get the right people and the right solution, but it definitely takes time."
"The remediation process could be improved."
"Agent features need to be improved. They support agents through Azure Arc or Workbench. Sometimes, we are not able to get correct signals from the machines on which we have installed these agents. We are not able to see how many are currently reporting to Azure Security Center, and how many are currently not reporting. For example, we have 1,000 machines, and we have enrolled 1,000 OMS agents on these machines to collect the log. When I look at the status, even though at some places, it shows that it is connected, but when I actually go and check, I'm not getting any alerts from those. There are some discrepancies on the agent, and the agent features are not up to the mark."
"I felt that there was disconnection in terms of understanding the UI. The communication for moving from the old UI to the new UI could be improved. It was a bit awkward."
"The product was a bit complex to set up earlier, however, it is a bit streamlined now."
"Azure's system could be more on point like AWS support. For example, if I have an issue with AWS, I create a support ticket, then I get a call or a message. With Azure support, you raise a ticket, and somebody calls back depending on their availability and the priority, which might not align with your business priority."
"The platform needs improvement in terms of handling heavy databases."
"The user interface could be improved by making it more user-friendly. There are multiple solutions and there is no clear line differentiating all of them. There is a centralized console where we manage everything but most of the administrators feel a little confused when it comes to managing multiple products from a single place."
"Trellix lacked email protection when it was a McAfee product. They added this feature during the merger with FireEye, but it hasn't been fully integrated. The core features will be integrated into the next release. FireEye has several solutions for EDR and sandboxing."
"The VirusScan needs to improve in order to detect ransomware and other advanced threats."
"The security of this solution needs improvement."
"The initial setup is complex. It is a very complex product. You must have experience with it."
"It would be a lot easier if I could add multiple user accounts within a single device."
"The vendor should simplify the way they bundle the products because it's very hard to explain to customers what products contain which features."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 11th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.
