We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security and NetWitness XDR 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. NetWitness XDR is commended for its prompt threat response, seamless integration capabilities, and user behavior analytics. Trellix could improve by reducing resource usage, enhancing stability, and making the solution more user-friendly. Users say NetWitness XDR could improve its threat intelligence and investigation. Some suggested updates to its reporting engine.
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. NetWitness XDR provides effective 24/7 technical support. While some were satisfied with the response times, others experienced delays of up to 48 hours.
Ease of Deployment: Setting up Trellix Endpoint Security is simple if the user has some expertise. Some users found the initial setup of NetWitness uncomplicated, but others faced challenges.
Pricing: Trellix Endpoint Security’s pricing is considered flexible, competitive, and about average compared to other solutions. The total cost of NetWitness XDR depends on the environment and the number of endpoints. Larger users can receive discounts, but users say the solution might be too pricey for smaller companies. NetWitness XDR provides various licenses, including some that feature premium support.
ROI: Users reported saving time by implementing Trellix Endpoint Security. NetWitness XDR has demonstrated positive outcomes by improving threat detection capabilities and facilitating digital forensics.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Trellix Endpoint Security over NetWitness XDR. Users praised Trellix's extensive management capabilities, low resource usage, and reasonable price. NetWitness XDR receives mixed reviews for its slower performance, and complex licensing. Users also that NetWitness could improve its threat intelligence and user interface. Trellix Endpoint Security earned positive feedback for its customer service and support, while some NetWitness users were unsatisfied with response times.
"The unified view of the threat landscape on a central dashboard is the most valuable feature."
"Microsoft Defender's most critical component is its CASB solution. It has many built-in policies that can improve your organization's cloud security posture. It's effective regardless of where your users are, which is critical because most users are working from home. It's cloud-based, so nothing is on-premise."
"It provides a single pane of glass within the 365 admin interface, streamlining our experience by consolidating information in one place and eliminating the need to navigate through multiple interfaces."
"Another noteworthy feature that I find appealing in Microsoft Defender is the credit-backed simulation. This feature enables organizations to train their users on effectively responding to phishing emails through a simulated training environment."
"The most valuable feature is the DLP because that's where we can have an added data protection layer and extend it not just to emails but to the documents that users are working on. We can make sure that sensitive data is tagged and flagged if unauthorized parties are using it."
"The product is very easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of all is the full integration with the rest of the software in the operating system and Office 365, as well as Microsoft SCCM. It is quite easy for us to work with the whole instance of Microsoft products. This integration improves the benefits of the whole suite of products."
"It has great stability."
"The log correlation is good."
"NetWitness Endpoint's most valuable features are its interoperability across many different operating systems and the ease of pivoting from network to endpoint via a single console."
"It is stable. We have been using it for some time, without any issues."
"It is very easy to use, and its usability is great. The use cases are also very easy. The visualizations of the use cases are magnificent. You cannot find this in any other solution. From my point of view, it is great."
"We've contacted technical support several times. They've been very good. They have been able to help us resolve our issues."
"The interface of this solution is very flexible and easy to use."
"They have recently updated the features and the most valuable ones are the instant threat response, ease of use, web interface, integration, and easy access. RSA NetWitness Endpoint is very compatible with other solutions and technologies. However, they do not rely on third-party solutions and have most features built-in."
"Ability to isolate the machine when there are malicious files."
"It's quite easy to install agents."
"The primary reason the solution is good is because of its ease-of-use."
"McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection is stable. We don't have any bugs being reported."
"The most valuable feature is the centralized console where everything can be controlled by the administration."
"It also allows multifunctionality within a single platform."
"It has been protecting us for many years, and we hope it will continue to do so for many years to come."
"Technical support is always available and very helpful."
"The most valuable features are the prevention layer that detects the signature value and prevents threats in the network."
"Because of the training model, Defender XDR's automatic response sometimes blocks legitimate users and activities. Also, the UI sometimes responds slowly."
"There are still some components, such as vulnerability management within the vendor product, where improved integration would be beneficial."
"Customers say they want absolutely seamless integration between other Microsoft solutions and Defender XDR, including the ability to change device settings within the Defender portal. They need to contact the IT team responsible for the device management tools to change some settings. They would prefer that those changes be initiated directly from the Defender portal or applied from Intune without involving the IT operations team."
"The support could be more knowledgable to improve their offering."
"The Defender agent itself is more compatible with Windows 10 and Windows 11. Other than these two lines, there are so many compatibility issues. Security is not only about Microsoft. The core technical aspects of it are quite good, but it would be good if they can better support non-Microsoft solutions in terms of putting the agents directly into VMware and other virtualization solutions. There should be more emphasis on RHEL and other operating systems that we use, other than Windows, in the server category."
"For some scenarios, it provides good visibility into threats, and for some scenarios, it doesn't. For example, sometimes the URLs within the emails have destinations, and you do get a screenshot and all further details, but it's not always the case. It would be good if they did a better job of enabling that for all the emails that they identified as malicious. When you get an email threat, you can go into the email and see more details, but the URL destination feature doesn't always show you a screenshot of the URL in that email. It also doesn't always give you the characteristics relating to that URL. It would be quite good if the information is complete where it says that we identified this URL, and this is what it looks like. There should be some threat intel about it. It should give you more details."
"The tool gives inconsistent answers and crashes a lot."
"The message trace feature for investigating mail flow issues should add more detailed information to the summary report... if they could extend the summary report a little bit, make it more descriptive, ordinary administrators could understand what happened and that the emails failed at this or that point. That way they would know the location to go to try to correct it and to prevent it from occurring again."
"The solution is modular, for example you can buy the RSA ePack, which you buy as a module is not part of the conduit solution. They could include it and have it as an all-in-one solution."
"Its price could be improved. It is an expensive product. Its training is also too expensive. It would be great if they can have a better pricing scheme for the training."
"This solution needs an upgrade in reporting. I have heard from RSA that they are working on this, but as of yet it is not available."
"RSA NetWitness Network could improve on integration with non-native application integration."
"The solution lacks a reporting engine."
"The deployment process is complex. I don't know why, but this solution will suddenly stop working. Logs stop coming. Often, one thing or another stops working. Most of the time, one of my team members is working with troubleshooting and working with technical support. Log passing is also one of the biggest challenge."
"The threat intelligence could improve in RSA NetWitness Endpoint."
"NetWitness Endpoint's blocking feature does not work properly - if there's a malicious process, it's not possible to kill it via a custom rule unless and until it's flagged as malicious."
"Support-wise they need to be better."
"An area in need of improvement involves the overview, which usually does not enable one to get the value in reports."
"The solution could provide open XDR in addition to EDR."
"Sometimes, while installing the ePO, we were getting so many errors and I don't know why it happened."
"There is room to improve with scalability."
"Currently, Trellix Endpoint Security can't find the running mutexes, while other open-source products can do it."
"There are times the solution has some additional software added that is not fully integrated properly, such as Exchange Group Sheild. It is quite old and is not fully integrated properly and could be improved."
"We know that McAfee isn't the best antivirus and it can't protect us 100%, although we are okay with the level of protection that it gives us."
NetWitness XDR is ranked 41st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 15 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 95 reviews. NetWitness XDR is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of NetWitness XDR writes "Beneficial single unified dashboard, good native application integration, and high availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". NetWitness XDR is most compared with Darktrace, ExtraHop Reveal(x), CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete 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 NetWitness XDR vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.