Trellix Endpoint Security Reviews

The most valuable feature for us is the central management – we can scale it up and dial back when we need to. It gives us a big picture, enterprise solution for our endpoint needs. We don’t have to go to three interfaces for the security picture as it's all in one shared space.

Endpoints are more than just customer laptops, they are also servers. Day-to-day, it’s a lot better when your solution is natively covering laptops, servers, and virtual servers.

It’s all organized and makes it much easier to follow up with individual issues or if there are breaches which need a start-to-finish investigation into IT security events, I can get one picture to follow the breadcrumbs.

A quicker turnaround with patches and updates would be good. Say there is a new patch or update, such as a new Apple OS, there is a bit of a lag between hot fixes. They are really good with Windows, so it may be an Apple thing more than Intel. If they are quicker with hot fixes with Apple OS, that would be an improvement.

We have been using this solution for the last three years.

It's not crashed once on me, and is up 99.99% of the time. It's only if there is an issue with the OS that it becomes unavailable, and there never an issue with the software end of things.

It's very easy to grow. We recently acquired another company, they did a whole new setup with no license and no new server, and they even have their own policy as they integrated into our system. There were no worries about our main policy. I didn’t need a second server for a small branch company as it collects all the data from the endpoints and then sends that back to our main server. It’s very easy to scale and Intel is great about that – even if you get an audit, it’s just to take care of you.

We're very happy with customer service. I can go on to the website and get live chat communication and in minutes -- maybe not even minutes -- I'll have the issue solved.

We're very happy with technical support. I can go on to the website and get live chat communication and in minutes -- maybe not even minutes -- I'll have the issue solved. The only issue that needs improvement is Mac or Linux support issues, but that’s not a regular occurrence. Even on the phone, I have been happy.

Initial setup was very straightforward and easy. Fine-tuning for your environment takes a little love and care, but that’s true for any product.

It's well worth the investment as we have a lot of laws governing us. In terms of security, it helps keep our environment clean. It recently caught an issue in the company with cryptolocker, and the amount of money it saved because we found that is huge. We didn’t have to pay fees to decrypt it and we were in the clear.

We looked at Norton and we used Gartner to see what players were in the space and looked at them all.

I am not liberty to describe our use cases, as this information is confidential. 

The primary reason the solution is good is because of its ease-of-use. It is easy to handle and create policies. 

While I cannot recall anything specific at the moment, there are many areas of the solution that I wish to see improved. 

We have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for more than three years.

The solution is very stable. 

The initial setup was very straightforward. 

We are using  McAfee Endpoint Security to protect the business.

McAfee Endpoint Security is easy to use, and it integrates well.

The performance is good.

The security of this solution needs improvement.

I have been using McAfee for a couple of years.

I believe that we are using the latest version.

McAfee Endpoint Security is a stable solution. We don't have any issues with the stability of this product.

I don't have the exact count, but we have thousands of users in our organization who use  McAfee Endpoint Security.

I have not contacted technical support.

I was not involved in the installation of McAfee Endpoint Security.

Licensing is paid yearly.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate McAfee Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

We use it for all Windows and MAC clients. We use it for endpoint protection, DLP, and disk encryption. We are using the latest version.

The endpoint protection and disk encryption features are the most valuable.

It didn't work well for some of the use cases. We have different use cases for each entity. 

Their support is also not good and needs improvement.

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for almost three years.

Only the endpoint is stable. There are still a few things that need to be done in DLP.

It can scale. We have around 10K users who use it on a daily basis. 

Their support is not good. It needs to be improved.

We used Symantec previously. They didn't have a suite, and I wanted a suite that can give me a single control panel to manage my endpoint protection, DLP, and disk encryption. I wanted to use only a single agent with different modules so that I don't have to worry about multiple things.

It was not that simple. I would say it was moderate. It took more than three months to stabilize.

We used a partner integrator. We maintain it on our own. 

It is not that expensive. There is no additional cost. We got the entire bundle together.

I would not recommend this solution because a lot of new-age solutions are available in the market. These solutions are better than McAfee Endpoint Security and can do a better job.

I would rate McAfee Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

The fact that the three components have been provided under one platform helps to simply perform product management.

Also, the virus definition file size is 40% smaller, which reduces the amount of bandwidth required to update all the endpoints.

There are three valuable components to Endpoint Security 10.1: First, there's threat prevention, which is for anti-virus and anti-malware detection. Second, there's firewall, which replaces the Windows firewall when activated. Third, there's web control which is used for endpoint web filtering.

The threat prevention feature is the most valuable because it provides protection against malware.

I would like the product deployment to be made simpler. The current deployment requires creating tasks to install each component.

The product is quite stable. We haven't had any issues with instability.

The scalability is great. We've been able to scale it for our needs.

Intel Security technical support is very efficient, although the wait times on the customer support line can be quite long.

I previously used Kaspersky. However, the management console does not match up to the functionality of the ePolicy orchestrator management console provided by Intel Security.

The setup was very straightforward. The EPO server deployed the McAfee agent and then we were able to deploy Endpoint Security.

Implementation was done through the vendor. My advice is to ensure all the requirements that are provided prior to implementation to avoid any delays.

The return on investment has been very encouraging. Ask the vendor to give you as much information as possible on all the suites so you can get a package that suites your environment.

Endpoint Protection 10.1 is a very complete endpoint protection solution that gives complete protection for endpoints. It is easy to deploy and can be a very useful endpoint protection suite for small, medium, and large-scale environments.

This is part of our network security solution. We have it running on different servers and workstations that are on different platforms.

McAfee EndPoint Security has a lot of good features that work well if they are implemented properly.

This solution is difficult to implement. There are lots of features but it has to be implemented the right way.

I would like this solution to do what Palo Alto traps does because I would only need to run this one product.

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for perhaps the last ten years.

It is stable, once it is configured and set up properly.

The technical support is good but the local people are bad.

On the workstation, the initial setup is easy.

For the server, it takes a long time for your people to implement it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Firstly, the Real-Time Protect and the dynamic application containment, are two great features out there. The endpoint features are also good. The new version is quite good as compared to the older version and interface. It's a replica of the VAC. It's good.

The solution could use better updates and fewer bugs.

It's quite stable. There are no performance issues or there is no concern that we have received so far. That's good.

It's easy to scale, but it depends upon your skillset as well. So if you have a good skill set, you can manage each and everything very easily.

For technical support, it depends upon which region you're connecting with. Most of the time, if you're in the Middle East and if you try to get the support it's really bad support. When you are in Asian countries, you get good support because of the experience in the region. For the US and UK, they have good support centers. So there is no issue with that.

The initial setup is straightforward, not complex.

We implemented the solution on our own.

For performance, they have introduced a new feature. McAfee decides what they want to scan and it reduces the performance of the system. So generally what happens is when McAfee scans a file, it stores the files in the cache. Next time, if there are any changes in the file, then only it will scan the file. Otherwise, it will not scan it. That's how they have increased in the performance inside.

I would rate this product eight out of 10.

In new units, the initial agenda, they are changing a lot of things and there are lots of bugs we normally we didn't use to see. Again, we had to rely on some updates, and the way that it appears, the mechanism, they have changed it. So lots of things involved like bugs and issues related to the different parts of the product are challenging. Otherwise, it's good.

We receive good protection with this solution. We use this for internet protection on the end-point.

The product helps us by contacting us if there are any virus attacks on our system.

I think the prime feature is the protection from malware.

It is a very stable solution.

The scalability of this product is very good. 

Tech support is not as helpful as they were in the past.

The setup was straightforward, and not complex.

When selecting a vendor, we want to make sure there is a good presence in our region, and competent partners that can give support of the solution.

The pricing is comparable to other solutions. We have no issues with the pricing of this solution.

It is all about the technical experience. Since we use this in our environment, we advise people to use this product.