We performed a comparison between Barkly [EOL] and Trellix Endpoint Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)."The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"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."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Very easy to install and use."
"We like the management of the ePO, and we like the management console."
"It is a stable solution...The solution's technical support is good."
"The product’s stability and security features enhance user protection and organizational security."
"It's quite easy to install agents."
"The detection is great and the solution is constantly improving."
"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 manageability of the product itself is its most valuable aspect. You have the underlying EPO, and on top of it, you can deploy the various components as you require. This is unlike other solutions like Symantec where you have to deploy everything or nothing. With this solution, you can choose to only deploy antivirus or only deploy a firewall, or only something else. I choose the components and that deployment is done through EPO. It makes manageability very flexible."
"The user behavioral analysis feature is great."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"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"
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"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."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"It lacks more sophisticated features and opportunity for customization."
"Tech support is not as helpful as they were in the past."
"The solution takes up a high amount of memory and can cause the system to hang."
"Every time we open a ticket with McAfee, their response differs and they are not consistent."
"There are two main areas that require improvement. One is the size of the packages. Although I'll admit manageability is good, if I want to deploy, let's say just the antivirus or just the firewall, each of those package sizes are quite large. They are sometimes as big as 200MB or 250MB. When I have operations in remote areas where connectivity is always poor, it's difficult. To deploy such a package in a remote location over the internet or something like that is always challenging."
"One of the drawbacks is that it is not 100% secure."
"We have a lot of problems with the user experience and it's difficult to implement. MacAfee's better than the ancient anti-virus solutions but it's a little slow to resolve. Many files with malware were destroyed through the network, and MacAfee doesn't detect anything."
"The software download features could stand improvement."
"Although they have increased the complexity, it has affected the scanning speed."
Earn 20 points
Barkly [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 94 reviews. Barkly [EOL] is rated 5.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Barkly [EOL] writes "Has an easy to use interface but lacks features and customization options". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Barkly [EOL] is most compared with , 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 Cisco Secure Endpoint.
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.