We performed a comparison between Fidelis Elevate and Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."This is stable and scalable."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"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."
"It has a rating system now so you can rate things up or down, depending on your environment. This means alerting can be customized, yet still pick up anomalies."
"Compared to similar solutions, it's quite scalable. You just need to add more storage to scale-up."
"The solution's technical support is perfect, so I rate the technical support a ten out of ten"
"The initial setup is very straightforward. The deployment of the server doesn't take so long; about a day or two max."
"After rack and stack, devices were up and running base configurations within two hours. As with any IPS, tuning is required to stop false positives. This is no different, but the ease of use of the interface allowed my team to start making adjustments within a few hours."
"It ensures the stability of network behavior across various aspects of our network and offers responsive capabilities to address incidents promptly"
"What I like the most about this solution is the complexity. It covers a lot of areas, unlike other solutions."
"It has also improved our hunt ability with quick search tools, to zone in on malware or other anomalies. It is able to link items to incidents from other consoles, and works natively with the SIEM."
"It is a scalable solution and very easy to use."
"This is a stable product."
"Blocking browser navigation is a feature of the solution with which we have experienced success."
"The product is user-friendly."
"What we're using the most and what we found valuable in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response are Web Control, Advanced Threat Protection, and Threat Prevention features."
"When Trellix detects some threats, the device is isolated in a quarantine zone for examination."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...I rate the solution's technical support team a nine and a half or ten out of ten."
"The product provides a one-click recovery of encrypted files."
"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."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"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."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"There is room for improvement in email security. It's a security issue. If you're aiming for XDR, covering the entire threat landscape is crucial."
"The reports in the endpoint area of Elevate can be improved."
"The interface bug needs to be squashed once and for all. This has been the predominant issue with an otherwise stellar product. It reboots itself unscheduled, about once a month, due to a memory buffer flaw in the interface."
"Fidelis Endpoint is an expensive product making it one of its shortcomings that needs improvement."
"Configuration, in terms of building the collector and communicating with endpoints, is complex."
"We position the solution as an antivirus, but this part of the solution needs improvement. They need to generally enhance the features that they have, rather than adding anything new."
"I encounter difficulty removing certain entries in behavior or alerts; likewise, I am unable to add specific calls."
"For Spanish users, it is necessary to have a knowledge base specifically designed for them, which is currently not available."
"The solution's downside stems from the fact that Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and McAfee MVISION Endpoint are not combined into a single solution, so from an improvement perspective, they need to be combined into a single solution."
"The console has a lot of bugs, and it creates many issues."
"An area for improvement in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the historical search. For example: when you have information on the artifact and a precedent, you want to do a search, and that is a bit lacking in the tool."
"The graphical view for nodes must be increased."
"The technical support must be improved."
"The main drawbacks are resources and processing time, as it consumes a lot of CPU and RAM."
"The solution lacks the ability to integrate with external platforms. In future releases of the solution, I would like to see the solution increase its integration capabilities with external platforms."
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fidelis Elevate is ranked 41st in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 7 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 23rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews. Fidelis Elevate is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Fidelis Elevate writes "Advanced threat detection capabilities with comprehensive incident response features providing robust cybersecurity for organizations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) writes "Multifeatured, with web control, advanced threat protection, and threat prevention capabilities, but its alerting and reporting features need improvement". Fidelis Elevate is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, VMware Carbon Black Cloud, CrowdStrike Falcon, Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response and Vectra AI, whereas Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our Fidelis Elevate vs. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.