We performed a comparison between Elastic Security and Trellix ESM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The cost is reasonable. It's not overly pricey."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the prevention methods and the incident alerts."
"ELK documentation is very good, so never needed to contact technical support."
"It's not very complicated to install Elastic."
"Elastic has a lot of beats, such as Winlogbeat and Filebeat. Beats are the agents that have to be installed on the terminals to send the data. When we install beats or Elastic agents on every terminal, they don't overload the terminals. In other SIEM solutions such as Splunk or QRadar, when beats or agents are installed on endpoints, they are very heavy for the terminals. They consume a lot of power of the terminals, whereas Elastic agents hardly consume any power and don't overload the terminals."
"ELK is open-source, and it will give you the framework you need to build everything from scratch."
"Enables monitoring of application performance and the ability to predict behaviors."
"Just the ability to do a lot more than just up-down is nice, which a lot of people take for granted."
"The most valuable features of McAfee ESM are intrusion detection, malware protection, and the device controller."
"It is easy to use and deploy. It comes with user-friendly manuals."
"It is user-friendly. The notification part of McAfee ESM is very easy."
"McAfee as a whole is a good solution."
"The most valuable feature is for the security operation center because it provides visibility of all traffic within the company infrastructure."
"The support I have received from the vendor has been great."
"The ease of use is the most valuable feature. Over the years I have always been using this solution and have become comfortable with it."
"The product’s most valuable feature is log monitoring."
"The Integration module could be improved. It is a pain to build integration with any product. We have to do parking and so on. It's not like other commercial solutions that use profile integration. I would also see more detection features on the SIEM side."
"Improvements in Elastic Security could include refining and normalizing queries to make them more user-friendly, enhancing the user experience with better documentation, and addressing any latency issues."
"Sometimes, the solution isn't the easiest to use."
"The process of designing dashboards is a little cumbersome in Kibana. Unless you are an expert, you will not be able to use it. The process should be pretty straightforward. The authentication feature is what we are looking for. We would love to have a central authentication system in the open-source edition without the need for a license or an enterprise license. If they can give at least a simple authentication system within a company. In a large organization, authentication is very essential for security because logs can contain a lot of confidential data. Therefore, an authentication feature for who accesses it should be there."
"Elastic Security could improve the documentation. It would help if they were more simple and clean."
"The tool should improve its scalability."
"Elastic Security has a steep learning curve, so it takes some time to tune it and set it up for your environment. There are some costs associated with logging things that don't have value. So you need to be cautious to only log things that make sense and keep them around for as long as you need. You shouldn't hold onto things just because you think you might need them."
"Technical support could respond faster."
"It seems McAfee does test its product before releasing. When we - not only us, other companies also - deploy McAfee, we face multiple issues from the customer side, after which, McAfee reacts and fixes the bugs."
"The product’s alert response feature needs improvement. It could be more flexible and secure."
"There are always multiple bugs in the product. For example, the console page was hanging multiple times. Afterwards, they released multiple upgrades for the same, multiple patches from McAfee."
"McAfee ESM is not user-friendly and the log is not accurate. For instance, if I were assigned to generate a log for changes made today, I wouldn't be able to see all the modifications. While Palo Alto allows us to see all changes, McAfee ESM only captures one out of every ten changes. It's crucial to have visibility into all changes made."
"Cloud integration has room for improvement because they're not full-fledged to integrate with the cloud solutions that come. They use different integration platforms to bring in data, and that needs to be improved."
"The support from McAfee ESM could improve. They could improve the speed."
"I would like to see good analytics in future releases."
"We acquired the IBM product because McAfee is slightly confusing to use, and it's broader."
Elastic Security is ranked 5th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 59 reviews while Trellix ESM is ranked 19th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 34 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while Trellix ESM is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix ESM writes "Provides visibility of all the traffic within the company infrastructure". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Trellix ESM is most compared with ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM), IBM Security QRadar, Splunk Enterprise Security, LogRhythm SIEM and Trellix Helix. See our Elastic Security vs. Trellix ESM report.
See our list of best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) vendors.
We monitor all Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) 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.
