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.
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The solution includes a good combination of features for both signature and signature-less."
"The product has a robust reporting feature"
"Dynamic Application Containment."
"The manageability of the product itself is its most valuable aspect. You have the underlying EPO, and on top of it, you can deploy the various components as you require. This is unlike other solutions like Symantec where you have to deploy everything or nothing. With this solution, you can choose to only deploy antivirus or only deploy a firewall, or only something else. I choose the components and that deployment is done through EPO. It makes manageability very flexible."
"It's easy to use."
"The endpoint security, antivirus and firewall are the most valuable features of Trellix Endpoint Security."
"The installation is pretty straightforward."
"We receive good protection with this solution."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"The platform’s most valuable features are ease of use, integration, and deployment."
"The threat scanning is excellent. It uses predictive technology and I can utilize attack data to help us fine-tune our systems and network infrastructure. This protects us against current and future attacks."
"It has a feature called Isolation. If a device is compromised, we can connect it to our SOC, and no one would be able to access it. This way we can limit the damage to the network while we are investigating."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"Provides protection against threats."
"The technical support services are good."
"It is very valuable in finding out unknown malware."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"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."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"Detections could be improved."
"An area in need of improvement involves the overview, which usually does not enable one to get the value in reports."
"With McAfee, if there is a zero-day vulnerability, you have to download the patch for it from the McAfee website, then apply it to your endpoint."
"Recently, Trellix has introduced a CDR, which involves more manual response than automatic. I believe they should enhance the system by adding features like automated response and the ability to create custom playbooks. This is crucial for an EDR solution, and currently, Trellix lacks this feature while other products offer it."
"The resolution time should be faster."
"We don't like the solution since it requires much memory consumption and consumes much CPU resources."
"Technical support is an area that can be improved because sometimes, the response time is a bit slow and the explanation is short."
"The tool could provide more advanced protection."
"The DAC (Dynamic Application Containment) component of this product needs improvement."
"I would like to see simple processing and reporting online."
"The performance could be better. I noticed that it slows down a bit."
"The way that signatures work when using this solution could be improved. They could be more user friendly. We would like the ability to select a client's signature from a menu or file share to save time."
"In some cases, the detection part was not accurate enough. We opened a few cases for the vendor to help us with some miscategorized findings on the endpoints. There were some false positive detections, and we had to work with the vendor to get them tested. We even had some incidents that were not detected. It was a black box type of solution for us."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
"The price of McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve."
"The customization capabilities of the solution are an area where it lacks, so it would be great if our company could customize the solution to meet the demands of our customers."
"Impacts performance of the servers quite negatively."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 11th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 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.