We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"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."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that there is a lot more malware slipping through my email filters than I expected."
"Integration is a key selling factor for Cisco security products. We have a Cisco Enterprise Agreement with access to Cisco Email Security, Cisco Firepower, Cisco Stealthwatch, Cisco Talos, Cisco Threat Grid, Cisco Umbrella, and also third-party solutions. This is key to our security and maximizing operations. Because we do have the Email Security appliance and it is integrated with Threat Response, we have everything tied together. Additionally, we are using the Cisco SecureX platform, as we were a beta test for that new solution. With SecureX, we are able to pull all those applications into one pane for visibility and maintenance. This greatly maximizes our security operations."
"For the initial first level of support, we provide it from our side. If there's escalation required, we use Cisco tech for the AMP. And again, they are perfect. I mean, one of the best, compared to any other vendors."
"The most valuable feature is its threat protection and data privacy, including its cyber attack and data protection, as we need to cover and protect data on user devices."
"The product provides sandboxing options like file reputation and file analysis."
"The console feature gives a centralized management of what's going on, and if something happens, it gives you an alert. So, that's the most important feature for me."
"The product's initial setup phase was very simple."
"Its most valuable features are its scalability and advanced threat protection for customers."
"The stability has been great."
"It has a feature called Isolation. If a device is compromised, we can connect it to our SOC, and no one would be able to access it. This way we can limit the damage to the network while we are investigating."
"MVISION offers decent protection."
"The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP."
"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."
"I have not received any complaints about the performance."
"The setup is not that complex. It takes five to ten minutes to set up."
"The performance is good."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"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 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."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"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."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The pricing policy could be more competitive, similar to Cisco's offerings."
"It is an expensive solution."
"This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports."
"The initial setup of Cisco Secure Endpoint is complex."
"We have had some problems with updates not playing nice with our environment. This is important, because if there is a new version, we need to test it thoroughly before it goes into production. We cannot just say, "There's a new version. It's not going to give us any problems." With the complexity of the solution using multiple engines for multiple tasks, it can sometimes cause performance issues on our endpoints. Therefore, we need to test it before we deploy. That takes one to three days before we can be certain that the new version plays nice with our environment."
"The initial setup is a bit complex because you need to execute existing antiviruses or security software that you have on your device."
"In the next release, I would for it to have back up abilities. I would like the ability to go back to a point in time to when my PC was uninfected and to the moment of when the infection happened."
"It is not very stable because we have new versions four times a year, which fixes bugs. We had some problems with some deployments."
"From an improvement perspective, I want everything in the solution to be free."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve by an overall simplification of the solution."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
"The price of McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve."
"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."
"The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux. We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap."
"In some cases, the detection part was not accurate enough. We opened a few cases for the vendor to help us with some miscategorized findings on the endpoints. There were some false positive detections, and we had to work with the vendor to get them tested. We even had some incidents that were not detected. It was a black box type of solution for us."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 45 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Makes it possible to see a threat once and block it across all endpoints and your entire security platform". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, 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 Open EDR. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.