We performed a comparison between McAfee MVISION Endpoint vs Trellix Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Of the two solutions, Trellix Endpoint Security is the more popular choice because not only is deployment easy, but it has an appealing set of product features and seems to have more powerful detection capabilities than McAfee MVISION.
"It is stable and scalable."
"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."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"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 FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"It provides a lot of information and great visibility, with really great options for managing the environment."
"Trellix Security Endpoint can promptly isolate any host machines directly from the console. If alerts are received and isolation is necessary, it can be accomplished through the console. The console itself holds significant value, accessible through a browser and allowing remote actions via cloud login."
"The endpoint security, antivirus and firewall are the most valuable features of Trellix Endpoint Security."
"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."
"Communication with all Mcafee products (also 3rd parties) by DXL infrastructure."
"The solution scales well."
"We can manage everything from the central console and it is very easy."
"The most valuable feature is the centralized console where everything can be controlled by the administration."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"The performance is good."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its simplicity."
"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 features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities."
"The seamless deployment is very valuable."
"We have a cloud-based instance, so we can deploy all our configurations through the cloud. That's the beauty of FireEye."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"Trellix lacked email protection when it was a McAfee product. They added this feature during the merger with FireEye, but it hasn't been fully integrated. The core features will be integrated into the next release. FireEye has several solutions for EDR and sandboxing."
"I think it would be nice if Dynamic Application Control would come together with McAfee Endpoint Security."
"Support-wise they need to be better."
"It would be nice if the solution were to allow not just on-cloud management, but on-premises, as well."
"The management console is a little bit difficult to understand for admins. You need a lot of time in order to become familiar with that. It is a little bit complicated and not too easy to understand. Its price can also be improved. Its price is higher than its competitors. McAfee also needs to have better cloud integration and more data centers in the EU. The cloud center should be in Europe or in Germany. In Germany, it is really important to have access to your data within the same country. Customer data needs to be placed and processed in the same country."
"Its pricing needs to be improved."
"The solution has problematic encryption, which needs reforming."
"There are certain shortcomings in the features concerning DLP in Trellix, where certain additions must be made in the future."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
"Most of these types of solutions including others, such as Carbon Black and FortiEDR, all have the same features. However, Carbon Black is the leader when it comes to being robust and user-friendly and this solution should improve in those areas to stay more competitive."
"The product’s on-premise version is costly in terms of extra charges for SQL database and Windows server licenses."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
"Intrusion detection and intervention seem to be falling behind the competition."
"The complexity of advanced modules can be improved."
"The way that signatures work when using this solution could be improved. They could be more user friendly. We would like the ability to select a client's signature from a menu or file share to save time."
"The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 95 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trend Micro Deep Security and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), Open EDR and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Trellix Endpoint Security vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.
It depends on what you want to achieve. With McAfee ENS you have complete coverage through McAfee solutions, that is, it has an AV engine (threat Protection), you have Advance Threat Protection (ATP), light control over browsers, and a firewall.
With MVISION Endpoint you add being able to manage Microsoft Defender from the MVISION ePO or EPO on-premise console. But the AV engine is Defender, not McAfee. So you depend on the potential and configuration you make of Defender.