We performed a comparison between Elastic Security 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."The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"The stability is very good."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"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."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The most valuable feature is the speed, as it responds in a very short time."
"It is the best open-source product for people working in SO, managing and analyzing logs."
"It is scalable."
"The product has huge integration varieties available."
"The solution is compatible with the cloud-native environment and they can adapt to it faster."
"It's open-source and free to use."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to collect authentication information from service providers."
"Elastic is straightforward, easy to integrate, and highly customizable."
"Provides protection against threats."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities."
"The independent modules are very good."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its simplicity."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint is stable."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"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."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The support needs improvement."
"Detections could be improved."
"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."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"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."
"This solution is very hard to implement."
"Elastic has one problem. In the past, Elastic Security was free. Now, they currently only offer the basic license or a certain period of time."
"Elastic Security's maintenance is hard and its scalability is a challenge. There are complications in scaling and upgrading. The solution needs to also provide periodic upgrade checks."
"The solution could also use better dashboards. They need to be more graphical, more matrix-like."
"We'd like to see some more artificial intelligence capabilities."
"There is room for improvement in the Kibana dashboard and in the asset management for the program."
"The price of this product could be improved, especially the additional costs. I would also like to see better-quality graphics."
"The problem with ELK is it's difficult to administer. When you have a problem, it can be very, very difficult to rebuild indexes."
"Endpoint resource utilization causes high levels of instability and that is something that needs improvement."
"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."
"The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release."
"The solution needs to work on memory consumption. It is too high."
"The initial setup can be a bit complicated for those unfamiliar with the product."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing. The price should be improved, it's high."
"The product could be flexible and offer better pricing."
"The product is consolidating its portfolio into one product. It is difficult at the moment."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Elastic Security is ranked 16th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 59 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 49 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, 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 Trellix Active Response. See our Elastic Security 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.