We performed a comparison between Elastic Security and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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."Impressive detection capabilities"
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"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"
"We like Elastic Security because it's a REST API-based solution. That's the primary reason we use it."
"Elastic Security is very easy to adapt."
"The stability of the solution is good."
"The most valuable thing is that this solution is widely used for work management and research. It's easy to jump into the security use case with the same technology."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the prevention methods and the incident alerts."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is that it is more flexible than AlienVault."
"We chose the product based on the ability to scan for malware using a malware behavioral model as opposed to just a traditional hash-based antivirus. Therefore, it's not as intensive."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to collect authentication information from service providers."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP."
"Trellix integrates well with most SIEM and data classification solutions."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The platform’s most valuable features are ease of use, integration, and deployment."
"FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front."
"The exploit guard and malware protection features are very useful. The logon tracker feature is also very useful. They have also given new modules such as logout backup, process backup. We ordered these modules from the FireEye market place, and we have installed these modules. We are currently exploring these features."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"Detections could be improved."
"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."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"An area for improvement in Elastic Security is the pricing. It could be better. Right now, when you increase the volume of logs to be collected, the price also increases a lot."
"Upgrades currently released as stacks when it should be a plugin or an extension to save removal and reinstallation."
"The solution needs to be more reactive to investigations. We need to be able to detect and prevent any attacks before it can damage our infrastructure. Currently, this solution doesn't offer that."
"The training that is offered for Elastic is in need of improvement because there is no depth to it."
"Authentication is not a default in Kibana. We need to have another tool to have authentication and authorization. These two should be part of Kibana."
"They don't provide user authentication and authorisation features (Shield) as a part of their open-source version."
"In terms of what could be improved with Elastic, in some use cases, especially on the advanced level, they are not ready made, so you'll have to write some scripts."
"We set up a cron job to delete old logs so that we wouldn't hit a disk space issue. Such a feature should be available in the UI, where old logs can be deleted automatically. (Don’t know if this feature is already there)."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing. The price should be improved, it's high."
"Most of these types of solutions including others, such as Carbon Black and FortiEDR, all have the same features. However, Carbon Black is the leader when it comes to being robust and user-friendly and this solution should improve in those areas to stay more competitive."
"The solution needs to work on memory consumption. It is too high."
"If you have another endpoint product running on the same machine, you have to fine tune functions from FireEye to avoid performance and user experience issues."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
"The product’s on-premise version is costly in terms of extra charges for SQL database and Windows server licenses."
"The solution can be expensive."
"You do not have access to all the features when you use the Trellix web interface. For example, you cannot do device or drive encryption from the web interface. Also, when we're working with customers, it's sometimes challenging to get sales support. Delays mean we might lose an opportunity. Lastly, Trellix lacks some documentation about custom features."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Elastic Security is ranked 16th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 59 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 49 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. 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 Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Trend Vision One Endpoint Security. See our Elastic Security vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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.