We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and Trellix Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is commended for its extensive cross-platform protection, user-friendly interface, and compatibility with third-party software. Trellix Endpoint Security is highly valued for its easy administration options and reliability. Kaspersky users requested improvements in security and stability. They also want better documentation, faster malware scanning, enhanced encryption, and improved remote management. Reviews suggest that Trellix could reduce resource consumption and improve user-friendliness.
Service and Support: Users say that Kaspersky’s support is helpful and responsive, whether it comes from resellers, partners, or the vendor. Some users have found the support for Trellix Endpoint Security helpful and reliable, while others have encountered ineffective assistance and communication problems.
Ease of Deployment: Some reported that Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is straightforward to setup, while others find it more complex and time-consuming. The setup process for Trellix Endpoint Security varies in difficulty, depending on the user's experience with McAfee and general technical expertise.
Pricing: Users gave mixed feedback on the price of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. Some found it reasonable while others thought it was expensive. Some find Trellix’s price reasonable and competitive, while others believe it could be lowered.
ROI: Our reviewers said that Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business has proven to be a solid investment. Trellix Endpoint Security provides significant time savings.
"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 has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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 main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"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 made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"It's excellent at detecting viruses."
"The centralized management is a nice features. It gives us the leeway to deal with other things as protection is being carried on in the background. We do not have to keep on watching as long as we have the right updates. It also saves us time."
"Kaspersky protects our company from ransomware attacks. We have multiple sites across the country, including the principal headquarters and different towns. We can see any viruses that are in the network and take action."
"I am impressed with the tool's main dashboard, anti-malware application blocking, DDoS, etc."
"Using dashboards, it is very easy to manage."
"The failure rate is very low."
"It is an effective solution. It provides a wide range of security and defense features."
"Center Management"
"The product is easy to use."
"Technical support is always available and very helpful."
"A big advantage of McAfee Endpoint Security is the ability to manage very big environments. We are supporting environments with 200,000 to 300,000 endpoints. The ability to manage with one single console is very important for us. McAfee has phenomenally improved in terms of detection. It provides real-time detection and response with the error, Real Protect, and reputations. It is not only based on signatures but also on behavior analytics, artificial intelligence, or machine learning. We have environments that never had issues with ransomware in the last 20 years. McAfee has a very good performance in this field."
"The new central console is better than the earlier one."
"The solution is broken down into different components from the portals. Web filtering, which is an added feature has been great for us."
"Threat prevention is valuable because most clients use other solutions like antivirus as part of web protection. I don't find that kind of solution useful."
"The initial setup is straightforward, not complex."
"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."
"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 solution is not stable."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"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've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"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."
"The initial setup is complex."
"Reaching their support team can be difficult."
"Kaspersky could be improved by better malware protection. They have to take advantage of Malwarebytes and integrate the same engine inside Kaspersky. I use Malwarebytes as well because Kaspersky doesn't always detect malware."
"This solution used a lot of memory and GPU; it would be nice if this could be reduced."
"The product offers support only through mail and not on the phone."
"There are times when Microsoft Windows's antivirus called Defender interferes with the functionality of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. There should be better integration with Windows."
"The performance is not very good."
"Areas for improvement include signature update management and selecting the respective features on the endpoint side."
"There is room to improve with scalability."
"On the next release, they should build an easier way to see a repair option within the McAfee icon on your system tray. If there was an issue, you should be able to contact the user or just right-click on "repair". That would be a very good feature to add. That could be a place of improvement, just adding that button, or customizing it."
"An area of improvement for this solution is to make it easier to manage."
"The product could do more to keep administration alerted to detected threats on endpoints."
"The initial setup is complex. It is a very complex product. You must have experience with it."
"The solution has problematic encryption, which needs reforming."
"The solution could use better updates and fewer bugs."
"The solution's documentation is not streamlined and is in bits and pieces, which should be in a single format."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 111 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, 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 Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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.