We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security and Microsoft 365 based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Trellix Endpoint Security users like the ePolicy Orchestrator, the solution’s robust central management console. Microsoft 365 Defender offers effortless integration with other Microsoft solutions. Users praised its flexibility and comprehensive protection against multiple threat types. Trellix could improve by reducing resource usage, enhancing stability, and making the solution more user-friendly. 365 Defender could upgrade its machine learning and AI capabilities. Some users suggested adopting Zero Trust features.
Service and Support: Some users say Trellix support is helpful and responsive, while others believe there is room for improvement in communication and resolution times. Some of our reviewers were satisfied with Microsoft support, but others complained about slow responses and lackluster problem-solving capabilities.
Ease of Deployment: Setting up Trellix Endpoint Security is simple if the user has some expertise. Setting up Microsoft 365 Defender is potentially complex and may involve integrating with existing policies. Some users reported longer deployment times.
Pricing: Trellix Endpoint Security’s pricing is considered flexible, competitive, and about average compared to other solutions. Some users say that Microsoft 365 Defender is good value, but others perceive it as more expensive than similar competing products.
ROI: Users reported saving time by implementing Trellix Endpoint Security. Microsoft 365 Defender offers savings, attack prevention, consolidation of security measures, and proactive threat detection.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Microsoft 365 Defender over Trellix Endpoint Security. It is praised for its smooth integration with other Microsoft tools, license consolidation, and user-friendly interface. Users value its threat-response capability and seamless integration with the entire Microsoft 365 line.
"It gives a lot of flexibility in terms of configuration and customization as per the business requirements."
"We can automate routine tasks and write scripts to carry out difficult tasks, which makes things easier for us."
"We are connected to Microsoft and have every laptop enrolled. This acts as an endpoint. The tool helps me check security and compliance. I can also check what a device is doing."
"The unified view of the threat landscape on a central dashboard is the most valuable feature."
"Among the most valuable features are the alert timeline, the alert story, which is pretty detailed. It gives us complete insight into what exactly happened on the endpoint. It doesn't just say, "Malware detected." It tells us what caused that malware to be detected and how it was detected. It gives us a complete timeline from beginning to end."
"The ability to hunt that IM data set or the identity data set at the same time is valuable. As incident response professionals, we are very used to EDRs and having device process registry telemetry, but a lot of times, we do not have that identity data right there with us, so we have to go search for it in some other silo. Being able to cross-correlate via both datasets at the same time is something that we can only do in Def"
"The most valuable feature depends on the scenario. For compliance, I like Microsoft Purview Information Protection and Data Loss Prevention. Sentinel is the most helpful feature for security. 365 Defender helps us prioritize threats across an enterprise. It's a crucial feature for the managed services team."
"The most valuable feature is the network security."
"Communication with all Mcafee products (also 3rd parties) by DXL infrastructure."
"Anyone can use it, the protection is good, and they have all of the features."
"McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection is stable. We don't have any bugs being reported."
"The solution is stable."
"The product’s stability and security features enhance user protection and organizational security."
"The central management console is powerful. You can manage endpoints, DLP, encryption, and all the other features from a single console."
"I have found the most valuable features to be the ability to manage the solution from anywhere and having an overview of the companies security."
"A big advantage of McAfee Endpoint Security is the ability to manage very big environments. We are supporting environments with 200,000 to 300,000 endpoints. The ability to manage with one single console is very important for us. McAfee has phenomenally improved in terms of detection. It provides real-time detection and response with the error, Real Protect, and reputations. It is not only based on signatures but also on behavior analytics, artificial intelligence, or machine learning. We have environments that never had issues with ransomware in the last 20 years. McAfee has a very good performance in this field."
"The user interface of Microsoft 365 Defender could improve. They could make it simpler."
"Advanced attacks could use an improvement."
"The data recovery and backup could be improved."
"Generally, antivirus products provide a central control to manage every device in terms of who is installing it or who is trying to disable it, but Microsoft doesn't have such a control center for the antivirus product it provides."
"At times, when we have an incident email and we click on the link for that incident, it opens a pop-up, but there is nothing. It has happened a couple of times."
"This solution could be improved if it included features such as those offered by Malwarebytes."
"The logs could be better."
"Correctly updated records are the most significant area for improvement. There have been times when we were notified of a required fix; we would carry out the fix and confirm it but still get the same notification a week later. This seems to be a delay in records being updated and leads to false reporting, which is something that needs to be fixed."
"The DAC (Dynamic Application Containment) component of this product needs improvement."
"An area of improvement for this solution is to make it easier to manage."
"The solution takes up a high amount of memory and can cause the system to hang."
"It would be a lot easier if I could add multiple user accounts within a single device."
"The solution consumes a lot of end user memory and CPU. Trellix doesn't really focus much on the anti-malware side."
"We experienced some bad behavior when we first installed the product. The system also starts slowly in some instances. If for some reason this solution crashes, we could lose all our data."
"It would be nice if the solution was a bit more stable."
"Technical support is an area that can be improved because sometimes, the response time is a bit slow and the explanation is short."
Microsoft Defender XDR is ranked 5th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 80 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 96 reviews. Microsoft Defender XDR is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender XDR writes "Includes four services and four products, which can help organizations a lot". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Microsoft Defender XDR is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager, Wazuh and Microsoft Purview Data Governance, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our Microsoft Defender XDR vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) vendors.
We monitor all Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.
