We performed a comparison between Morphisec and Trellix Endpoint Security 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."I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"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."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The stability is very good."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Morphisec makes use of deterministic attack prevention that doesn’t require investigation of security alerts. It changes the memory locations of where certain applications run. If you think of Excel, opening a PDF, running an Excel macro, or opening a webpage and clicking on a link, all of those actions run in a certain area of memory. Morphisec changes the memory locations of where those run."
"Morphisec provides full visibility into security events from Microsoft Defender and Morphisec in one dashboard. Defender and Morphisec are integrated. It's important because it lowers the total cost of maintenance on the engineer's time, more or less. So the administrative time is dramatically reduced in maintaining the product. This saves an engineer around four to five hours a week."
"Morphisec is a straightforward solution that is efficient and very stable."
"Morphisec's in-memory protection is probably the most valuable feature because it stops malicious activity from occurring. If something tries to install or act as a sleeper agent, Morphisec will detect and stop it."
"Morphisec Guard enables us to see at a glance whether our users have device control and disk encryption enabled properly. This is important because we are a global company operating with multiple entities. Previously, we didn't have that visibility. Now, we have visibility so we can pinpoint some locations where there are machines that are not really protected, offline, etc. It gives us visibility, which is good."
"The biggest feature is that it hides everything from your operating system that's running in-memory from anything to try to run against it. That's the most unique thing that's on the market. There's nothing else out there that's quite like that. That's a big selling point and why we went with it. It does exactly what the design does. If you can't find it, you can't execute against it."
"It also provides full visibility into security events from Microsoft Defender and Morphisec in one dashboard. We've always had that capability with Morphisec. The more recent version appears to do that even a little bit more natively and it's given us visibility that we didn't have otherwise."
"Since using Morphisec we have seen a downturn in attacks because Morphisec protects us versus Defenders and whatnot that are signature-based. I know we have not had any issues with ransomware or other zero-day attacks that we've seen with machines that, all of a sudden, have become before we instituted the product. Now the machine had to be re-imaged and there was a loss of data because something was on the machine. You couldn't really determine what was on the machine because nothing was picking it up. The products we were using weren't picking it up."
"This product has the capability to check a wide range of vulnerabilities and devices."
"The product is easy to use."
"The solution is stable."
"The product’s stability and security features enhance user protection and organizational security."
"When Intel acquired McAfee they worked on the protocol so that all vendors can work on the same platform. It's a very big improvement in McAfee. All McAfee products talk to each other. Other vendor's products can join this platform as well so it makes it more powerful on the enterprise side for McAfee."
"It has improved my organization because it helps with visibility, in terms of security. We can see the actual attack and can contain it. The antivirus can detect that."
"The endpoint protection and disk encryption features are the most valuable."
"It can be deployed quickly, and it's scalable. Those are the two advantages of it."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"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."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"The SIEM could be improved."
"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."
"If anything, tech support might be their weakest link. The process of getting someone involved sometimes takes a little time. It seems to me that they should have all the data they need to let me know whether an alert is legitimate or not, but they tend to need a lot of information from me to get to the bottom of something. It usually takes a little longer than I would expect."
"Right now, it's just their auto-update feature. I know they are currently working on that. When they release a new version of the threat prevention platform, I do have to update that, rolling out to every computer. They have said, "From version 5, you would be able to do an auto-update." While this is very minor, that is the only thing that I would say needs to be upgraded. It would just make life a lot easier for other IT teams. However, I have simplified the process, so all I need to do is just download one file."
"The weakest point of this product is how difficult it is to understand the reasons for an alert. This is a problem because it is hard to determine whether an attack is real or not."
"We have discovered some bugs in the new releases that they've had to fix, so I would like to see more testing and QA on their side before they release."
"Sometimes it generates false positive alerts. They need to continue working on that. They have provided solutions for it and have fixed issues with updated versions. The service is quite good but they need to work on it more so that there are no false positive alerts."
"Morphisec is a venture startup. They are still early in their growth stage. They need to get mature on their customer support and on how they interface with system tools. For example, they need to get multifactor in place and an API for the major multi-factor systems, e.g., Okta, Duo, Ping, and Microsoft. They don't have them built in yet. They are working on them. It is just not there yet. Also, their stability, customer support, and processes need improvement, which is just part of maturity."
"In the Windows Defender integration, they have put in a report of computers that need Windows Defender updates. If those updates could be kicked off directly from the dashboard, instead of having to go to another system entirely, that would be good."
"We sometimes have to depend on the support team to know what action we should take. If the solution for an alert can be built into the report that we are getting, it will save time, and the interaction with support would be less. At times, corrective action is required, but at times, we don't need to take any action. It would be good if we get to know in the report that a particular infection doesn't require any action. It will save us time and effort."
"We’re facing remote installation issues sometimes:"
"There is room to improve with scalability."
"There are certain shortcomings in the features concerning DLP in Trellix, where certain additions must be made in the future."
"The solution has problematic encryption, which needs reforming."
"Trying to move away from the signature model for antivirus and malware blocking is something that would be nice. Instead of having to update every day, which is signature-based, moving to more of a kernel or architecture-based model would probably be beneficial."
"It would be a lot easier if I could add multiple user accounts within a single device."
"The initial setup isn't so easy. You need to know what you are doing."
"We know that McAfee isn't the best antivirus and it can't protect us 100%, although we are okay with the level of protection that it gives us."
Morphisec is ranked 43rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 21 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Morphisec is rated 9.2, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Morphisec writes "Light on the endpoint and does not have any performance hindrance on the endpoint". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Morphisec is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Code42 Incydr, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Cisco Secure Endpoint, 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 Morphisec vs. Trellix Endpoint Security 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.