We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Trellix Endpoint Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"It gives all the information in a clear response."
"The initial setup was easy and straightforward."
"What I like most about Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is the support because the support is good. The solution is also easy to use, and it has a dashboard. Everything is good, and there's no problem with it."
"The initial setup process is straightforward."
"Cybereason absolutely enables us to mitigate and isolate on the fly. Our managed detection response telemetry has dropped dramatically since we began using it. It's very top-of-mind. We were running some tabletop exercises and none of the detections were getting triggered by the managed security services provider. So we needed to find a solution that would trigger high-fidelity alerts. That was Cybereason and it dramatically changed our landscape from the detection and response perspective."
"We didn't have the visibility that we now have. It has increased our visibility by a lot. So, we put a lot more time into really looking at our environment and what is happening throughout our different networks. It has increased our visibility by around fivefold."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature is the capability of the command used by the machine so that we see the kind of performance that is running."
"Technical support is always available and very helpful."
"Communication with all Mcafee products (also 3rd parties) by DXL infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature is the centralized console where everything can be controlled by the administration."
"Trellix Security Endpoint can promptly isolate any host machines directly from the console. If alerts are received and isolation is necessary, it can be accomplished through the console. The console itself holds significant value, accessible through a browser and allowing remote actions via cloud login."
"The product is quite user-friendly."
"McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection is stable. We don't have any bugs being reported."
"I like trap prevention DNS and threat prevention."
"It can be deployed quickly, and it's scalable. Those are the two advantages of it."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"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've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"Compared to our previous endpoint, we have a lot more false positives and a lot more duplication of alerts. So we're chasing more alerts."
"While the product is very good, there are still some areas for improvement. The initial triage area could be a bit simpler. They get into the weeds real fast; it gets very detailed very fast. I am still looking for an easier triage layer on top with the ability to dig deeper."
"Its Microsoft PowerShell protections still need some compatibility improvements. We have run across just a few. It is compatible with 90% of what we have in our network, but there is that 10% that we are still struggling with as far as compatibility with the type of PowerShell scripts needed to run our day-to-day business."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"It should be more stable, and the sensor needs improvement in terms of connectivity."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"The network coverage becomes an issue most of the time."
"Reporting could be a bit more granular so that we had the ability to check regions and countries. I just noticed that, for instance, if I look at our servers, it's either "contained" or it's "not contained". I don't have the option, for instance, to look at countries. It only allows me to look at users as one big group."
"One of the drawbacks is that it is not 100% secure."
"Its pricing needs to be improved."
"Support-wise they need to be better."
"The solution could use better updates and fewer bugs."
"Tech support is not as helpful as they were in the past."
"The initial setup is complex. It is a very complex product. You must have experience with it."
"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."
"There is room to improve with scalability."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 42nd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 94 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response writes "It has helped us become more knowledgeable about our environment and aware of threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Darktrace and Intercept X Endpoint, 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 Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. Trellix Endpoint Security 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.