We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Trend Vision One 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."Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"It is a scalable solution and very easy to use."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...I rate the solution's technical support team a nine and a half or ten out of ten."
"Trellix has a user-friendly interface."
"The product is user-friendly."
"The product's initial setup phase was very straightforward since you just need to install it, and it works."
"When Trellix detects some threats, the device is isolated in a quarantine zone for examination."
"The product provides a one-click recovery of encrypted files."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the network protection shield on every server, which isolates attacks and prevents our clients from being affected."
"VisionOne offers a clear window into the security posture of our endpoints."
"Its detection rate is valuable. It is really an easy product to install and manage. It is quite effective at what it does, and if needed, it can also be co-managed, which means 24 hours and seven days a week monitoring through a SOC."
"Trend Micro XDR is stable, scalable, and reasonably priced."
"For our day-to-day use cases, the correlation and attribution of different alerts are valuable. It is sort of an SIEM, but it is intelligent enough to run the queries and intentionally detect and prioritize attacks for you. At the end of the day, it is different data that you see. It correlates data for you and makes it meaningful. You can see that someone got an email and clicked a link. That link downloaded, for example, malware into the memory of the machine. From there, you can see that they started moving laterally to your environment. I quite like it because it gives visibility, so Workbench is what we use every day"
"It is a stable product. It works very well."
"We are very impressed with the single pane of glass visibility that Trend Micro XDR provides."
"The integration is also nice because there are many external tools that we can connect to the platform, such as configuration management tools. Because the platform is integrated, I can manage almost the whole company across our global organization."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The endpoints and utilization are too high, which impacts the production activity."
"The main drawbacks are resources and processing time, as it consumes a lot of CPU and RAM."
"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."
"The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
"The graphical view for nodes must be increased."
"The solution's downside stems from the fact that Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and McAfee MVISION Endpoint are not combined into a single solution, so from an improvement perspective, they need to be combined into a single solution."
"Trellix does not support Linux and Mac."
"One of the issues about the product stems from the failure to work on its administrative scalability. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
"The deployment process could be more streamlined over the existing infrastructure, as it was not as easy as we thought."
"The support has been delayed at times."
"The support documentation could be more comprehensive."
"They should increase their potential for third-party integrations."
"I'd like to see alert time reduction so that they show up on the dashboard faster."
"The price could be lower."
"I think that continued optimization of the environment towards automation and orchestration, a kind of layer that sits underneath all of the technologies, would be extremely important."
"It would be better if it were more user-friendly. It would also be better if the implementation were more straightforward."
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews while Trend Vision One is ranked 5th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 43 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4, while Trend Vision One is rated 8.6. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trend Vision One writes "The integration of toolsets is key, enabling automation, and vendor has been tremendous partner for us". Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, CrowdStrike Falcon and Elastic Security, whereas Trend Vision One is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender XDR, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vs. Trend Vision One report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors and 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.
