We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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."Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"It has been scalable."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"In Digital Guardian, they have the cloud correlation servers that give you visibility work like EBR and the correlation server works very well for security analysis."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"The agents are easy to deploy."
"MVISION offers decent protection."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"Provides good mobile device protection."
"Provides protection against threats."
"The exploit guard and malware protection features are very useful. The logon tracker feature is also very useful. They have also given new modules such as logout backup, process backup. We ordered these modules from the FireEye market place, and we have installed these modules. We are currently exploring these features."
"The most valuable feature is the integration between environments."
"I found the initial setup to be easy."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"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 solution is not stable."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"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."
"The support needs improvement."
"There are a lot of issues with the current version of the Endpoint agent. It's not stable, it's resource-consuming, and there are some performance issues. If they could improve the stability of the agent it would be great."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"If the client uses Windows 10 or 11 and Microsoft updates the operating system's version, Digital Guardian must update their product to match compatibility."
"The product needs to reduce the usage of RAM and CPU."
"The complexity of advanced modules can be improved."
"The product’s on-premise version is costly in terms of extra charges for SQL database and Windows server licenses."
"The performance could be better. I noticed that it slows down a bit."
"Performance is a problematic area in the solution needing improvement."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
"I would like to see more automation."
"MVISION Endpoint is only compatible with Windows 10 and Windows 2016 and above. If I were using a Linux operating system, I would not be able to use MVISION Endpoint."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Digital Guardian is ranked 29th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 11 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 49 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and Zscaler DLP, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Trellix Active Response. See our Digital Guardian vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of 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.