We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Trellix ESM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)."Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The stability is very good."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"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"
"They do a very good job of providing multi-stage visualizations of malicious operations that immediately show all attack details across all devices and users. Since it is MalOp-centric model, you can see if there has been a similar operation across multiple machines. If it is the same thing appearing on multiple machines, you see all the machines and users affected in one screen."
"Their EDR solution, the ability to mitigate issues through their command line, is probably the best feature that we've had. We use that all the time. It's very useful for doing investigations."
"I haven't had any issues with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"Cybereason's threat hunting and investigation are the most valuable features. Threat hunting is a user-friendly feature that keeps you safe. Investigation offers an added value that I haven't seen with other EDR services. It allows you to find specific policy problems within your environment."
"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"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."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"It has good technical support, which is available around the clock. You can call up anytime and get whatever you want. My queues are resolved."
"I like the ease of deployment."
"The most valuable feature for us is that it comes with many correlations, reports, and dashboards already available. It's also very easy to use."
"The most valuable features of McAfee ESM are intrusion detection, malware protection, and the device controller."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation rules."
"The ease of use is the most valuable feature. Over the years I have always been using this solution and have become comfortable with it."
"It is user-friendly. The notification part of McAfee ESM is very easy."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to correlate different events from different platforms that we feed into it."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"Detections could be improved."
"The support needs improvement."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"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."
"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."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"Cybereason does not have sandbox functionality."
"The deployment on individual endpoints is more geared toward larger organizations. It might prove to be a bit too complicated for a smaller organization. You need to know what you're doing when you're deploying the sensor."
"Ad hoc higher-level reporting to senior management can be improved or can be implemented. That's definitely an area of improvement that they need to focus on."
"It initially took some time to deploy."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"It seems McAfee does test its product before releasing. When we - not only us, other companies also - deploy McAfee, we face multiple issues from the customer side, after which, McAfee reacts and fixes the bugs."
"Product currently requires Flash."
"I would like to see fingerprint recognition included in the next release of this solution."
"There are always multiple bugs in the product. For example, the console page was hanging multiple times. Afterwards, they released multiple upgrades for the same, multiple patches from McAfee."
"It is not a very advanced solution, and it is for very generic use cases. It cannot cope with the advanced requirements that we're going to have. For example, for multiple authentication failures, it is still based on Windows events for detecting multiple login failures, whereas other companies are going beyond and working on implementing two-factor authentication. It is time to correlate the two-factor authentication results with authentification failures, which is not happening with McAfee ESM. The performance of the tool should be improved because it is very slow. The data display on the console is very slow in McAfee ESM. Its data storage is still old-fashioned, and it should be improved and upgraded to the latest versions. They have to come up with some new ideas to match what other leaders in the same domain are doing. For example, in Splunk, when you search for information for the last 60 days or five months, it quickly shows the information, but that is not the case with McAfee. The results should be quicker and faster on the console. They should integrate some additional features such as User Behavior Analytics (UBA) and automation. The threat intelligence part should also be improved on McAfee."
"We would welcome integrations with some of the new McAfee acquisitions, e.g., behavioural analytics."
"The product’s alert response feature needs improvement. It could be more flexible and secure."
"The user interface could be more user-friendly."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 37th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 19 reviews while Trellix ESM is ranked 18th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 34 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Trellix ESM is rated 7.4. 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 ESM writes "Provides visibility of all the traffic within the company infrastructure". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Darktrace and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Trellix ESM is most compared with ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM), IBM Security QRadar, Splunk Enterprise Security, LogRhythm SIEM and SQRRL.
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.
