We performed a comparison between Cynet and Trellix Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. Trellix Endpoint Security users like the ePolicy Orchestrator, the solution’s robust central management console. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools. Trellix could improve by reducing resource usage, enhancing stability, and making the solution more user-friendly.
Service and Support: Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. They have a dedicated support team that is available round the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents. Some users say Trellix support is helpful and responsive, while others believe there is room for improvement in communication and resolution times.
Ease of Deployment: Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly. Setting up Trellix Endpoint Security is simple if the user has some expertise.
Pricing: Customers generally view Cynet's pricing and licensing experience as affordable and a good value for its features.Trellix Endpoint Security’s pricing is considered flexible, competitive, and about average compared to other solutions.
ROI: Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data. Users reported saving time by implementing Trellix Endpoint Security.
"Its most significant advantage lies in its affordability."
"I like 365 Defender's advanced threat hunting. The dashboard is user-friendly with templates for site policies, etc. The most important use case is evaluating the risk links and applications."
"I like that it's stable. It's been stable for a long time, and Microsoft Defender has done a good job there."
"We are connected to Microsoft and have every laptop enrolled. This acts as an endpoint. The tool helps me check security and compliance. I can also check what a device is doing."
"For me, the advanced hunting capabilities have been really great. It allowed querying the dataset with their own language, which is KQL or Kusto Query Language. That has allowed me to get much more insight into the events that have occurred. The whole power of 365 Defender is that you can get the whole story. It allows you to query an email-based activity and then correlate it with an endpoint-based activity."
"From the perspective of Microsoft 365 XDR, the main benefit is a single, centralized dashboard offering the holistic visibility organizations crave."
"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 integrates security into one tool instead of having third-party security tools."
"It's transparent, so it's not something where every user has to press a button to download or do the thing. It is centralized, in fact. Personally, I use Malwarebytes and other tools, which are fine for home use. Cynet is also relatively silent in terms of operation, except when it's required to act."
"Cynet is light and transparent when downloaded. The product's data aggregation is also valuable since you can see everything you need on a page."
"The feature I find most valuable, is the reality graphical user interface."
"It is quite stable. I would rate the stability of the solution a nine out of ten."
"We are protecting all our workstations."
"The initial setup is simple and user-friendly."
"The level of automation is very good because the majority of the time, it blocks the attacks without requiring anything from our side. The technicians don't have to do anything. They are just alerted about what happened. So, the user intelligence works quite well."
"A reliable security system that automatically quarantines anything suspicious."
"Automatic user recovery prior to Windows booting up."
"I think the costing is fine compared to other products. Cost-wise you definitely get value for your money."
"The solution includes a good combination of features for both signature and signature-less."
"Tech support is responsive. They're good, the very best."
"The DLP and user interface are the most valuable feature."
"The installation is pretty straightforward."
"Some of McAfee Endpoint Security's main features are it has benefits over normal conventional antivirus solutions because it works much faster."
"The performance is good."
"At times, when we have an incident email and we click on the link for that incident, it opens a pop-up, but there is nothing. It has happened a couple of times."
"Defender also lacks automated detection and response. You need to resolve issues manually. You can manage multiple Microsoft security products from a single portal, and all your security recommendations are in one place. It's easy to understand and manage. However, I wouldn't say Defender is a single pane of glass. You still need to switch between all of the available Microsoft tools. You can see all the alerts in one panel, but you can't automate remediation."
"There should be better information for experts on features in the solution. What I see when reading about features in Microsoft 365 Defender is that it is always general information. If Microsoft could go deeper into details for the experts about how to use the tools, usage of it would be more familiar and it would be easier to use."
"There are other SIEM solutions that are easier to use, mainly based on the creation of rules, use cases, and groups."
"Improving scalability, especially for very large tenants, could be beneficial for Microsoft Defender XDR."
"The dashboard should be easier to use. There is also improvement needed in the reporting when it comes to exporting or scheduling reports."
"Microsoft 365 Defender does not have a unique package with emerging endpoint security technologies, such as EDR and XDR."
"The tool gives inconsistent answers and crashes a lot."
"They have some things in the pipeline, we understand, and they're going to be able to support Android and all these other devices soon. The key is the devices - which is an aspect that is lacking right now. Every company has that problem, not just Cynet."
"There are some shortcomings in Cynet's integration capabilities that need improvement."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the usability of this product for new threats. Meaning, not everything which is new is properly seen by the product and not all the required actions are taken."
"The reporting is a little weak and could be improved. The other downside is that Cynet does not use the local time zone. It's based off of Greenwich Mean Time."
"SIEM - Although with their Centralised Log Management Cynet has created the basis for SIEM functionality, this is to be expanded in the near future."
"The solution lacks URL filtering."
"We'd like something that makes it easier to manage specific points."
"They have automated response capability, and they're moving more and more into SOAR capability. They have built-in deception technology with host-file users, phantoms, etc. We used to call them honeypots. So, they're on target. They're doing a really good job, and they should continue to improve with SOAR."
"Some agents become old and then they don't communicate well any longer."
"I would like to see more integration with third-party products."
"It didn't work well for some of the use cases. We have different use cases for each entity. Their support is also not good and needs improvement."
"The solution's documentation is not streamlined and is in bits and pieces, which should be in a single format."
"The product is not easy to use."
"The DAC (Dynamic Application Containment) component of this product needs improvement."
"The initial setup is complex. It is a very complex product. You must have experience with it."
"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."
Cynet is ranked 17th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 35 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 94 reviews. Cynet is rated 8.8, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, 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 Cynet vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors, best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) vendors, and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.