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.
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The stability is very good."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"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."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Would benefit with the addition of DLP features."
"The solution offers very good endpoint security."
"We can manage everything from the central console and it is very easy."
"The most valuable feature of Trellix Endpoint Security is containment, which takes less than a minute."
"The product has a robust reporting feature"
"The loss prevention feature would be the most valuable."
"The installation is pretty straightforward."
"The most valuable features of the solution include DLP (data loss prevention), CASB (cloud access security broker) functionality, endpoint encryption, and cloud workload security."
"The stability has been great."
"It is a really strong solution for endpoint security."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The seamless deployment is very valuable."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"Trellix Endpoint Security has a full suite of DLP."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"It is easy to use, flexible, and stable. Because it is a cloud-based solution and it integrates all endpoints of the cloud, we can do an IOC-based search. It can search the entire enterprise and tell us the endpoints that are possibly compromised."
"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."
"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."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"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 only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"When it runs in the background of the endpoint, the devices get slowed down for some applications."
"The solution's documentation is not streamlined and is in bits and pieces, which should be in a single format."
"The initial setup isn't so easy. You need to know what you are doing."
"I've encountered minor challenges related to encryption."
"They can improve its resource consumption, such as memory, and maybe provide better or smaller updates. It always takes a lot of resources, but it has been getting better. I have been using McAfee products for the last 20 years or so, and I know it is getting better."
"The product could do more to keep administration alerted to detected threats on endpoints."
"There are certain shortcomings in the features concerning DLP in Trellix, where certain additions must be made in the future."
"The solution could use better updates and fewer bugs."
"So far, McAfee MVISION Endpoint ticks off all of our boxes, but its pricing could always be better."
"Impacts performance of the servers quite negatively."
"Upgrading to new versions isn't easy and it can take a long time. Also, other solutions' tamper protection features are better than FireEye's. Clients should have access to our local information, but they shouldn't change settings on the system itself."
"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."
"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 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 complexity of advanced modules can be improved."
"Sometimes, one might face issues with the scalability of the product. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
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.