We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Trend Vision One 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."Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The product is user-friendly."
"When Trellix detects some threats, the device is isolated in a quarantine zone for examination."
"If there is any malicious behavior in the workstation or server, the tool stops or isolates it automatically and generates alerts."
"What we're using the most and what we found valuable in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response are Web Control, Advanced Threat Protection, and Threat Prevention features."
"Blocking browser navigation is a feature of the solution with which we have experienced success."
"Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) offers endpoint protection and helps collect information while also allowing users to investigate malicious files in an IT environment...It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...I rate the solution's technical support team a nine and a half or ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature I found in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the guided analytics or guided EDR investigation."
"The centralized visibility is good."
"The telemetric report is the most valuable feature."
"It helps us with investigations."
"We haven't had any issues with configurations or customizations."
"The proactive approach is the best feature."
"The solution is stable."
"For scalability, I would give a rating of ten out of ten."
"VisionOne offers a clear window into the security posture of our endpoints."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"Detections could be improved."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The support needs improvement."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"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"
"The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
"The alert feature of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response needs improvement because for you to get the alerts, you have to log on to the portal. What my company needs is a tool that sends you alerts. For example, if it detects a threat on your machine, it should send you an alert. My company gets the alerts instead from the antivirus software rather than the EDR. If you want to see the alerts on McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, you have to connect to the system manually. Another area for improvement in the tool is the reporting. My company needs weekly and monthly reports about the alerts, but you can't extract reports from McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, so a decision was made to move to another EDR solution, particularly Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, next month. My company tested Microsoft Defender for Endpoint via a POC for one to three months. The resource usage of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is also an area for improvement because it consumes a lot of memory. For example, during the on-demand scan, you can't work because of the high CPU usage. You need to schedule the scans. McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response has a lot of modules, but my company doesn't use all modules."
"For Spanish users, it is necessary to have a knowledge base specifically designed for them, which is currently not available."
"The console has a lot of bugs, and it creates many issues."
"The solution lacks the ability to integrate with external platforms. In future releases of the solution, I would like to see the solution increase its integration capabilities with external platforms."
"The solution's downside stems from the fact that Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and McAfee MVISION Endpoint are not combined into a single solution, so from an improvement perspective, they need to be combined into a single solution."
"An area for improvement in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the historical search. For example: when you have information on the artifact and a precedent, you want to do a search, and that is a bit lacking in the tool."
"The endpoints and utilization are too high, which impacts the production activity."
"The zero trust is a bit complicated compared to other parts of the solution."
"We do use the automation capability a little. However, we noticed some limitations, especially on the playbook side."
"I would like to have the capability to export the information we receive from the XDR into Microsoft Excel."
"I'd like to see alert time reduction so that they show up on the dashboard faster."
"While blocking an IP address restricts access for 30 days, it eventually becomes accessible again."
"The solution lacks compatibility with other products. It needs to integrate better with other surrounding solutions."
"Reporting could be a little bit better. They are working on it, and it is getting better."
"We've received some mild complaints that the documentation is sometimes not up to date."
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews while Trend Vision One is ranked 5th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 43 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4, while Trend Vision One is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) writes "Multifeatured, with web control, advanced threat protection, and threat prevention capabilities, but its alerting and reporting features need improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trend Vision One writes "The integration of toolsets is key, enabling automation, and vendor has been tremendous partner for us". Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, CrowdStrike Falcon and Elastic Security, whereas Trend Vision One is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender XDR, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vs. Trend Vision One report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors and 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.