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 product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The stability is very good."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"It is stable and scalable."
"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."
"Trellix Endpoint Security offers robust access protection, addressing major concerns in prevention. It provides both application control and user access control within its access protection features."
"I like trap prevention DNS and threat prevention."
"The product is easy to use."
"It's quite easy to install agents."
"Tech support is responsive. They're good, the very best."
"I think the costing is fine compared to other products. Cost-wise you definitely get value for your money."
"The reporting capabilities are a valuable feature. In enables more visibility on our network."
"There is a new feature where you can set thresholds for all the CPU consumption allowing for no consumption on the servers when the scans happen. It is a separate plugin or addon, and if we have it on all the virtual machines it automatically checks the resources, and based on that, it will schedule the scans. That is something that I have not seen in other antivirus solutions, such as Symantec."
"The stability has been great."
"Trellix integrates well with most SIEM and data classification solutions."
"What I like most about McAfee MVISION Endpoint is that it's very user-friendly. You do need some knowledge on how to navigate the portal, but as soon as you've gained that knowledge, navigation will no longer be an issue. I have no complaints about McAfee MVISION Endpoint. For me, the product is perfect the way it is. It's great right now, and it's doing good as it is."
"The response part of EDR was most valuable. We used that to separate the endpoint from the network. We utilized the solution during the instant response. We were also utilizing advanced malware detection capabilities, but we benefited the most from its help with the response."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"We have a cloud-based instance, so we can deploy all our configurations through the cloud. That's the beauty of FireEye."
"A great console with a user-friendly GUI."
"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 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."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"There are certain shortcomings in the features concerning DLP in Trellix, where certain additions must be made in the future."
"While we are pleased with the endpoint solution, there should also be a separate one for the firewall."
"The security of this solution needs improvement."
"Trellix lacked email protection when it was a McAfee product. They added this feature during the merger with FireEye, but it hasn't been fully integrated. The core features will be integrated into the next release. FireEye has several solutions for EDR and sandboxing."
"Tech support is not as helpful as they were in the past."
"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."
"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."
"The solution's documentation is not streamlined and is in bits and pieces, which should be in a single format."
"The price of McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve."
"A policy-editing console should be added."
"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."
"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."
"Performance is a problematic area in the solution needing improvement."
"They could also increase or improve the scalability because to my knowledge the biggest bandwidth can only support up to 10 gigs of input."
"I would like to see simple processing and reporting online."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
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.