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.
"It is stable and scalable."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"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."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"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."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The solution is broken down into different components from the portals. Web filtering, which is an added feature has been great for us."
"The product’s stability and security features enhance user protection and organizational security."
"We receive good protection with this solution."
"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 initial setup of Trellix Endpoint Security was straightforward."
"It can be deployed quickly, and it's scalable. Those are the two advantages of it."
"Technical support is excellent."
"MVISION offers decent protection."
"The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP."
"The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities."
"It's very stable and reliable."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The investigation and forensic analysis have been most helpful."
"The performance is good."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"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."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The support needs improvement."
"Users can just install software into their computers. We need some sort of application control system that, if there are any pieces of software that are not whitelisted, then the solution could flag it or maybe alert the administers. That would be very helpful."
"The local technical support could be better."
"Technical support is an area that can be improved because sometimes, the response time is a bit slow and the explanation is short."
"It would be helpful if the controlling of connections coming to the PC could be done from McAfee's side so that we can block those connections."
"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."
"The solution consumes a lot of end user memory and CPU. Trellix doesn't really focus much on the anti-malware side."
"The product is not easy to use."
"Every time we open a ticket with McAfee, their response differs and they are not consistent."
"The performance could be better. I noticed that it slows down a bit."
"I would like to see simple processing and reporting online."
"One suggestion is they should reduce the constant notifications. Whenever I open my laptop, there are too many notifications from McAfee, and it gets annoying."
"Looking at the current ePolicy orchestrator, and the transition of most vendors to the cloud, they need to do an improvement with the current dashboard or the overall aesthetic of their GUI."
"Performance is a problematic area in the solution needing improvement."
"They have something called Managed Detection and Response. They get intel from their customers, and that intel is shared with the rest of FireEye's customers. I want to subscribe to their intel, but that is not available to us."
"I would like to see more automation."
"Endpoint resource utilization causes high levels of instability and that is something that needs improvement."
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.