We performed a comparison between McAfee MVISION Endpoint vs Trellix Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Of the two solutions, Trellix Endpoint Security is the more popular choice because not only is deployment easy, but it has an appealing set of product features and seems to have more powerful detection capabilities than McAfee MVISION.
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"We can manage everything from the central console and it is very easy."
"Automatic user recovery prior to Windows booting up."
"Would benefit with the addition of DLP features."
"The new central console is better than the earlier one."
"The most valuable features of the solution include DLP (data loss prevention), CASB (cloud access security broker) functionality, endpoint encryption, and cloud workload security."
"The endpoint protection and disk encryption features are the most valuable."
"The solution is stable."
"Initially, the DLP was very valuable for disabling access to USB drives."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"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."
"A great console with a user-friendly GUI."
"Trellix Endpoint Security has a full suite of DLP."
"The setup is not that complex. It takes five to ten minutes to set up."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its dashboard."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"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 EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"The solution is not stable."
"Detections could be improved."
"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."
"With McAfee, if there is a zero-day vulnerability, you have to download the patch for it from the McAfee website, then apply it to your endpoint."
"Its pricing needs to be improved."
"The interface is complex."
"The platform needs improvement in terms of handling heavy databases."
"There are times the solution has some additional software added that is not fully integrated properly, such as Exchange Group Sheild. It is quite old and is not fully integrated properly and could be improved."
"Tech support is not as helpful as they were in the past."
"One of the drawbacks is that it is not 100% secure."
"They can make it free, but that's not going to happen."
"The product is consolidating its portfolio into one product. It is difficult at the moment."
"I would like to see more automation."
"It has very good integrations. However, its integration with Palo Alto was not good, and they seem to be working on it at the backend. It is not very resource-hungry, but it can be even better in terms of resource utilization. It could be improved in terms of efficiency, memory sizing, and disk consumption by agents."
"The product needs to reduce the usage of RAM and CPU."
"From an improvement perspective, I want everything in the solution to be free."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
"It is a very heavy tool, unfortunately."
"The price of McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 94 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 48 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "It integrates well with other solutions, but the vendor needs more of a local presence and faster response". Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trend Micro Deep Security and Cisco Secure Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), Open EDR and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Trellix Endpoint Security vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.
It depends on what you want to achieve. With McAfee ENS you have complete coverage through McAfee solutions, that is, it has an AV engine (threat Protection), you have Advance Threat Protection (ATP), light control over browsers, and a firewall.
With MVISION Endpoint you add being able to manage Microsoft Defender from the MVISION ePO or EPO on-premise console. But the AV engine is Defender, not McAfee. So you depend on the potential and configuration you make of Defender.