We performed a comparison between Bitdefender GravityZone EDR and Trellix Endpoint Security 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."The stability is very good."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"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."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"It was easy to set up."
"We like the dashboard, the console, the reporting. It's very easy to deploy."
"If you detect a virus, you can isolate the PC from the network and prevent access to the internet, network and routers. Once fixed, you can give access back to the client. We have not had this functionality using other solutions."
"The cloud management is easy and useful, especially in our case when we have multiple offices in different locations."
"What I have found to be valuable is after every new release of the solution there are more features. At the time that we bought Bitdefender GravityZone, it was their top solution. We went from their Enterprise version to Elite, Elite HD, Ultra, and now there is an Ultra Plus available."
"With Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra, we don't have to worry about our endpoints or attacks. Our security has become stronger. This has been a reliable solution for our company."
"The features that are most useful are the simplicity of deploying the package and the cryptosystem for managing all the situations on the computer."
"It's hard to pick just one valuable feature as almost all of the main features are very useful. However, the ability to manage it centrally and have detailed control over settings, exceptions and other configurations is extremely beneficial."
"It has been protecting us for many years, and we hope it will continue to do so for many years to come."
"It provides a lot of information and great visibility, with really great options for managing the environment."
"It can be deployed quickly, and it's scalable. Those are the two advantages of it."
"The user behavioral analysis feature is great."
"McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection is stable. We don't have any bugs being reported."
"The product is easy to use."
"I like trap prevention DNS and threat prevention."
"Would benefit with the addition of DLP features."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is not stable."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"They need to improve their encryption capabilities."
"The one thing I'd say about their complete MDR product is that it's too expensive, which is why I prefer to use an alternative SOC and integrate Bitdefender to a different SOC on their own."
"The reporting is much too simple."
"Using this product requires quite a bit of training, which is hard to get."
"Bitfender could improve their modules on the server. For example, Bitdefender doesn't have content filters or firewall modules on the server. It would be great if it had a networking module and a content filter module at the workstations."
"There was a bit of a problem deploying."
"Their ransomware remediation doesn't respond as fast as BullWall does...Ransomware control needs to be improved."
"For many, the problems come mostly when they start tweaking or short-cutting - particularly for patch management."
"Patch management is unavailable"
"Some agents become old and then they don't communicate well any longer."
"Every time we open a ticket with McAfee, their response differs and they are not consistent."
"The initial setup isn't so easy. You need to know what you are doing."
"I would like this solution to do what Palo Alto traps does because I would only need to run this one product."
"An area of improvement for this solution is to make it easier to manage."
"There are two main areas that require improvement. One is the size of the packages. Although I'll admit manageability is good, if I want to deploy, let's say just the antivirus or just the firewall, each of those package sizes are quite large. They are sometimes as big as 200MB or 250MB. When I have operations in remote areas where connectivity is always poor, it's difficult. To deploy such a package in a remote location over the internet or something like that is always challenging."
"We have a lot of problems with the user experience and it's difficult to implement. MacAfee's better than the ancient anti-virus solutions but it's a little slow to resolve. Many files with malware were destroyed through the network, and MacAfee doesn't detect anything."
Bitdefender GravityZone EDR is ranked 13th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 56 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 11th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Bitdefender GravityZone EDR is rated 8.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Bitdefender GravityZone EDR writes "High-quality threat intelligence, including encryption and mobile device protection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Bitdefender GravityZone EDR is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and Datto Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), 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 SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Bitdefender GravityZone EDR vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
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.