We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiEDR 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."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"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 product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"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 is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front."
"The activation of features within ENS and the collection of threats into a single console is a strong point."
"It's good that it periodically scans all my drives. I can stay up to date with the status of my drivers and update them if needed."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"The response part of EDR was most valuable. We used that to separate the endpoint from the network. We utilized the solution during the instant response. We were also utilizing advanced malware detection capabilities, but we benefited the most from its help with the response."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"The performance is good."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"Detections could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"Endpoint resource utilization causes high levels of instability and that is something that needs improvement."
"The reports need more development. They need more details on the reports and more details taking the executive view into consideration."
"The solution lacks device control."
"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."
"The product is consolidating its portfolio into one product. It is difficult at the moment."
"They have something called Managed Detection and Response. They get intel from their customers, and that intel is shared with the rest of FireEye's customers. I want to subscribe to their intel, but that is not available to us."
"We'd like better UI on the management screen."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiEDR is ranked 13th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 30 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 49 reviews. Fortinet FortiEDR is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiEDR writes "A proactive solution that works as a proactive upgrade from a firewall". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Fortinet FortiEDR is most compared with Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, 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 Open EDR. See our Fortinet FortiEDR 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.