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.
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"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"
"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 scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"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."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The endpoint security, antivirus and firewall are the most valuable features of Trellix Endpoint Security."
"The solution is reliable."
"I like trap prevention DNS and threat prevention."
"Their malware detection rate is excellent for all type of devices and the anti-theft products are good and easy to use."
"McAfee EndPoint Security has a lot of good features that work well if they are implemented properly."
"The product is quite user-friendly."
"The endpoint protection and disk encryption features are the most valuable."
"Initially, the DLP was very valuable for disabling access to USB drives."
"The tool has contributed to improving our security posture. While it's just one part of our overall solution, it plays a crucial role. As we continue to evolve, we anticipate it becoming even more important alongside other aspects like network behavior and additional metrics."
"The most valuable feature is the integration between environments."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"Technical support is excellent."
"FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front."
"The performance is good."
"The seamless deployment is very valuable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its dashboard."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"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"
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"McAfee GW Security and McAfee Child Safety need some improvement as they are relatively new."
"It would be helpful if the controlling of connections coming to the PC could be done from McAfee's side so that we can block those connections."
"It would be a lot easier if I could add multiple user accounts within a single device."
"There are certain shortcomings in the features concerning DLP in Trellix, where certain additions must be made in the future."
"If there's a possibility for remote assistance or investigation support in the future, it would be beneficial. Currently, we use another remote software for such purposes. If this feature could be included in the next version, that would be an improvement. The feature is called Remote Administration. I'm somewhat satisfied, but there's an issue I recently encountered. When attempting to scan a suspected host machine, Symantec Endpoint Security did not provide any alerts. However, when we installed Malwarebytes and ran a scan, it detected a threat that wasn't identified by Symantec. We raised this concern with the team for resolution, and the investigation is still ongoing."
"It didn't work well for some of the use cases. We have different use cases for each entity. Their support is also not good and needs improvement."
"It would be nice if the solution were to allow not just on-cloud management, but on-premises, as well."
"I would like this solution to do what Palo Alto traps does because I would only need to run this one product."
"The central monitoring dashboard needs improvement."
"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."
"They could also increase or improve the scalability because to my knowledge the biggest bandwidth can only support up to 10 gigs of input."
"The solution needs to work on memory consumption. It is too high."
"From an improvement perspective, I want everything in the solution to be free."
"I would like to see more automation."
"The price of McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve."
"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 94 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 CylancePROTECT, 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.