We performed a comparison between Elastic Security and Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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."Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"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"
"This is stable and scalable."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The stability is very good."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Its flexibility is most valuable. We can have a number of scenarios, and we can get logs from anything. If we know how to use Logstash, we can tweak it in many ways. This makes the logging search on Elastic very easy."
"Enables monitoring of application performance and the ability to predict behaviors."
"What customers found most valuable in Elastic Security feature-wise is the search capability, in particular, the way of writing the search query and the speed of searching for results."
"The indexes allow you to get your results quickly. The filtering and log passing is the advantage of Logstash."
"It can handle millions of loads at a time, and you can always use the filters to find exactly what you are looking for and detect errors in every log message you are searching for, basically."
"The most valuable features are the speed, detail, and visualization. It has the latest standards."
"The solution is compatible with the cloud-native environment and they can adapt to it faster."
"We like Elastic Security because it's a REST API-based solution. That's the primary reason we use it."
"Trellix has a user-friendly interface."
"What we're using the most and what we found valuable in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response are Web Control, Advanced Threat Protection, and Threat Prevention features."
"The biggest strength of the solution is that it's an integrated product that includes EDR and antivirus."
"Blocking browser navigation is a feature of the solution with which we have experienced success."
"Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) offers endpoint protection and helps collect information while also allowing users to investigate malicious files in an IT environment...It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"This is a stable product."
"It is a scalable solution and very easy to use."
"The product's initial setup phase was very straightforward since you just need to install it, and it works."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"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."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The tool should improve its scalability."
"This solution is very hard to implement."
"There is room for improvement in the Kibana dashboard and in the asset management for the program."
"It could use maybe a little more on the Linux side."
"I would like more ways to manage permissions and restrict access to certain users."
"There is an area of improvement in the Logs list. The load list may need to be paginated as there are limits."
"One limitation of Elastic Security is that it does not have built-in workflows for all tasks. For example, if you need a workflow for compliance, you will need to create a custom workflow."
"We'd like better premium support."
"The solution's downside stems from the fact that Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and McAfee MVISION Endpoint are not combined into a single solution, so from an improvement perspective, they need to be combined into a single solution."
"The main drawbacks are resources and processing time, as it consumes a lot of CPU and RAM."
"The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
"The alert feature of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response needs improvement because for you to get the alerts, you have to log on to the portal. What my company needs is a tool that sends you alerts. For example, if it detects a threat on your machine, it should send you an alert. My company gets the alerts instead from the antivirus software rather than the EDR. If you want to see the alerts on McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, you have to connect to the system manually. Another area for improvement in the tool is the reporting. My company needs weekly and monthly reports about the alerts, but you can't extract reports from McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, so a decision was made to move to another EDR solution, particularly Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, next month. My company tested Microsoft Defender for Endpoint via a POC for one to three months. The resource usage of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is also an area for improvement because it consumes a lot of memory. For example, during the on-demand scan, you can't work because of the high CPU usage. You need to schedule the scans. McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response has a lot of modules, but my company doesn't use all modules."
"One of the issues about the product stems from the failure to work on its administrative scalability. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
"For Spanish users, it is necessary to have a knowledge base specifically designed for them, which is currently not available."
"Trellix does not support Linux and Mac."
"The dashboard and reporting features are not so user-friendly or intuitive, so they need some work."
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Elastic Security is ranked 16th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 59 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4. 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 Detection and Response (EDR) writes "Multifeatured, with web control, advanced threat protection, and threat prevention capabilities, but its alerting and reporting features need improvement". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Sangfor Endpoint Secure. See our Elastic Security vs. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.