We performed a comparison between NetWitness XDR and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"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 most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"It is stable and scalable."
"This solution allows us to locate the malware in real-time."
"Ability to isolate the machine when there are malicious files."
"The log correlation is good."
"It's a scalable solution. We have around five to eight customers using RSA NetWitness Endpoint, and we hope to increase the number of users."
"It is very easy to use, and its usability is great. The use cases are also very easy. The visualizations of the use cases are magnificent. You cannot find this in any other solution. From my point of view, it is great."
"We've contacted technical support several times. They've been very good. They have been able to help us resolve our issues."
"They have recently updated the features and the most valuable ones are the instant threat response, ease of use, web interface, integration, and easy access. RSA NetWitness Endpoint is very compatible with other solutions and technologies. However, they do not rely on third-party solutions and have most features built-in."
"It helps our security team respond more accurately when there are threats, then we get less false positives or negatives."
"It's very stable and reliable."
"It is easy to use, flexible, and stable. Because it is a cloud-based solution and it integrates all endpoints of the cloud, we can do an IOC-based search. It can search the entire enterprise and tell us the endpoints that are possibly compromised."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"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 independent modules are very good."
"Trellix integrates well with most SIEM and data classification solutions."
"I found the initial setup to be easy."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"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 support needs improvement."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"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."
"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"
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"The integration of the solution needs to be improved. The dashboard needs lots of updates as well. In the next release, we would like to see advanced fraud detection features."
"I would like to see Security Orchestration and Response Automation (SOAR) integration."
"This solution needs an upgrade in reporting. I have heard from RSA that they are working on this, but as of yet it is not available."
"The contamination feature could be improved."
"RSA NetWitness Network could improve on integration with non-native application integration."
"We would like to see the hunting and investigation features of this solution improved, in order to provide better visibility of issues."
"The solution lacks a reporting engine."
"The threat intelligence could improve in RSA NetWitness Endpoint."
"The product is consolidating its portfolio into one product. It is difficult at the moment."
"Intrusion detection and intervention seem to be falling behind the competition."
"Looking at the current ePolicy orchestrator, and the transition of most vendors to the cloud, they need to do an improvement with the current dashboard or the overall aesthetic of their GUI."
"The reports need more development. They need more details on the reports and more details taking the executive view into consideration."
"Upgrading to new versions isn't easy and it can take a long time. Also, other solutions' tamper protection features are better than FireEye's. Clients should have access to our local information, but they shouldn't change settings on the system itself."
"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."
"The product’s on-premise version is costly in terms of extra charges for SQL database and Windows server licenses."
"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."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
NetWitness XDR is ranked 41st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 15 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews. NetWitness XDR is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of NetWitness XDR writes "Beneficial single unified dashboard, good native application integration, and high availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". NetWitness XDR is most compared with Darktrace, ExtraHop Reveal(x), CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Vectra AI, 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 NetWitness XDR vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.