We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert and Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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."he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"It helps improve security in our organization."
"We compared Kaspersky and Trend Micro. The latter is significantly more expensive. That's the main difference."
"The solution does a good job of filtering and blocking unusual traffic."
"I like the tool’s response to malware and trojans."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"We've found the solution to be stable."
"The content filtering options are good."
"The most valuable features of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response are the threat detection technologies, and activity monitoring and support tools. Additionally, the port and USB security, and antivirus are effective."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Pros →
"What we're using the most and what we found valuable in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response are Web Control, Advanced Threat Protection, and Threat Prevention features."
"The product is user-friendly."
"The product's initial setup phase was very straightforward since you just need to install it, and it works."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the ability to isolate or quarantine devices and block or detect Ransomware and other well-known tools that are used to exploit vulnerabilities on devices."
"When Trellix detects some threats, the device is isolated in a quarantine zone for examination."
"The most valuable feature I found in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the guided analytics or guided EDR investigation."
"Trellix has a user-friendly interface."
"Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) offers endpoint protection and helps collect information while also allowing users to investigate malicious files in an IT environment...It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The solution is not stable."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"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 solution lacks DLP."
"We'd like more integrations to be available in the future."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is very heavy on the system resources. It uses a lot of memory and the system can become slow."
"An area for improvement in Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is its technical support because currently, technical support is delayed."
"The technical support team should respond in a more timely manner."
"If it covered more products, it would improve the XDR."
"Installing Kaspersky is complex. It requires more work from system admins and takes almost one week to deploy, including integration and mapping with other solutions. You also have to configure Kaspersky EDR sandboxing then set up permissions for various teams and customers."
"I would like better integration with other products."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Cons →
"The technical support must be improved."
"The main drawbacks are resources and processing time, as it consumes a lot of CPU and RAM."
"The endpoints and utilization are too high, which impacts the production activity."
"Trellix does not support Linux and Mac."
"Some modules that are doing machine learning and artificial intelligence are blocking our processes."
"The console has a lot of bugs, and it creates many issues."
"The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
"The alert feature of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response needs improvement because for you to get the alerts, you have to log on to the portal. What my company needs is a tool that sends you alerts. For example, if it detects a threat on your machine, it should send you an alert. My company gets the alerts instead from the antivirus software rather than the EDR. If you want to see the alerts on McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, you have to connect to the system manually. Another area for improvement in the tool is the reporting. My company needs weekly and monthly reports about the alerts, but you can't extract reports from McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, so a decision was made to move to another EDR solution, particularly Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, next month. My company tested Microsoft Defender for Endpoint via a POC for one to three months. The resource usage of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is also an area for improvement because it consumes a lot of memory. For example, during the on-demand scan, you can't work because of the high CPU usage. You need to schedule the scans. McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response has a lot of modules, but my company doesn't use all modules."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is ranked 17th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 44 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is rated 8.2, while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert writes "Solid security and performance; overall a useful tool". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) writes "Multifeatured, with web control, advanced threat protection, and threat prevention capabilities, but its alerting and reporting features need improvement". Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is most compared with Trend Vision One, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cynet, IBM Security QRadar and Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response, whereas Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert vs. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.