We performed a comparison between Trellix Active Response and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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."I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"We are hoping to automate detection and response and take advantage of user behavior analytics, given that we are working from home. About half of our workers are still remote, so Active Response gives us that visibility and lets us automate a number of those events."
"The solution is scalable."
"It's a little lighter compared to the older version, which was mostly signature-based."
"The most valuable feature is the integration between environments."
"The independent modules are very good."
"What I like most about McAfee MVISION Endpoint is that it's very user-friendly. You do need some knowledge on how to navigate the portal, but as soon as you've gained that knowledge, navigation will no longer be an issue. I have no complaints about McAfee MVISION Endpoint. For me, the product is perfect the way it is. It's great right now, and it's doing good as it is."
"The response part of EDR was most valuable. We used that to separate the endpoint from the network. We utilized the solution during the instant response. We were also utilizing advanced malware detection capabilities, but we benefited the most from its help with the response."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"It's good that it periodically scans all my drives. I can stay up to date with the status of my drivers and update them if needed."
"Technical support is excellent."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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 solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"There are some components on the cloud that should also reside in the on-prem deployment models but don't."
"While the product is good, we are currently facing support issues."
"I also expected Active Response 's user interface to be much more analytical."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
"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."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
"Impacts performance of the servers quite negatively."
"The customization capabilities of the solution are an area where it lacks, so it would be great if our company could customize the solution to meet the demands of our customers."
"The price of McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve."
"The product is consolidating its portfolio into one product. It is difficult at the moment."
"Malware detection can be better. It doesn't have support and detection for the recent malware, but it has a compensatory control where it can do the behavior-based assessment and alert you when there is something malicious or unexpected. For example, when a certain user is executing the privilege command, which is not normal. These dynamic detections are good, and they compensate for malware detection."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Trellix Active Response is ranked 57th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 49 reviews. Trellix Active Response is rated 6.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Trellix Active Response writes "Lighter with good stability and pretty good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Trellix Active Response is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Elastic Security. See our Trellix Active Response vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of 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.