We performed a comparison between Nyotron PARANOID and Trellix Endpoint Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"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 setup is pretty simple."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"Nyotron protects your users and does not acquire any threat intelligence."
"First of all, it does the job. It prevents harm to the operating system. Also, the visibility it gives to the user and to the administrator is very good."
"The product has a robust reporting feature"
"The loss prevention feature would be the most valuable."
"Trellix Security Endpoint can promptly isolate any host machines directly from the console. If alerts are received and isolation is necessary, it can be accomplished through the console. The console itself holds significant value, accessible through a browser and allowing remote actions via cloud login."
"I like trap prevention DNS and threat prevention."
"When Intel acquired McAfee they worked on the protocol so that all vendors can work on the same platform. It's a very big improvement in McAfee. All McAfee products talk to each other. Other vendor's products can join this platform as well so it makes it more powerful on the enterprise side for McAfee."
"One valuable feature is Threat Prevention with the on-demand scan."
"The thing that I like is that they have gathered almost all the products in one management server, the ePolicy Orchestrator."
"This is a good solution for antivirus and malware protection."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"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."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"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 solution should be available on Linux and other platforms, including mobile platforms such as Android and iOS."
"The main feature that is missing is to have the same solution on servers. Currently it's only protecting the client side, not the server. If they would add the server in the same solution, that would be great."
"The product could do more to keep administration alerted to detected threats on endpoints."
"The price of the solution is high in Asia."
"The tool could provide more advanced protection."
"Support-wise they need to be better."
"The solution consumes a lot of end user memory and CPU. Trellix doesn't really focus much on the anti-malware side."
"The DAC (Dynamic Application Containment) component of this product needs improvement."
"There is room to improve with scalability."
"We experienced some bad behavior when we first installed the product. The system also starts slowly in some instances. If for some reason this solution crashes, we could lose all our data."
Nyotron PARANOID is ranked 50th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 2 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 11th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Nyotron PARANOID is rated 8.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Nyotron PARANOID writes "A cost-effective security solution for endpoint protection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Nyotron PARANOID is most compared with , 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 SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Nyotron PARANOID vs. Trellix Endpoint Security 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.