We performed a comparison between Cynet and Trellix Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. Trellix Endpoint Security users like the ePolicy Orchestrator, the solution’s robust central management console. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools. Trellix could improve by reducing resource usage, enhancing stability, and making the solution more user-friendly.
Service and Support: Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. They have a dedicated support team that is available round the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents. Some users say Trellix support is helpful and responsive, while others believe there is room for improvement in communication and resolution times.
Ease of Deployment: Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly. Setting up Trellix Endpoint Security is simple if the user has some expertise.
Pricing: Customers generally view Cynet's pricing and licensing experience as affordable and a good value for its features.Trellix Endpoint Security’s pricing is considered flexible, competitive, and about average compared to other solutions.
ROI: Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data. Users reported saving time by implementing Trellix Endpoint Security.
"The product integrates security into one tool instead of having third-party security tools."
"We can use Defender to block and monitor for security purposes without needing multiple other products to do different tasks."
"Microsoft 365 Defender's most valuable feature is the ability to control the shadow IP."
"The ability to hunt that IM data set or the identity data set at the same time is valuable. As incident response professionals, we are very used to EDRs and having device process registry telemetry, but a lot of times, we do not have that identity data right there with us, so we have to go search for it in some other silo. Being able to cross-correlate via both datasets at the same time is something that we can only do in Def"
"Within advanced threat hunting, the tables that have already been defined by Microsoft are helpful. In the advanced threat hunting tab, there were different tables, and one of the tables was related to device info, device alert, and device events. That was very helpful. Another feature that I liked but didn't have access to was deep analysis."
"The timeline feature is excellent. I also like the phishing simulation. We have phishing campaigns to educate employees and warn them about these threats."
"Another noteworthy feature that I find appealing in Microsoft Defender is the credit-backed simulation. This feature enables organizations to train their users on effectively responding to phishing emails through a simulated training environment."
"We can automate routine tasks and write scripts to carry out difficult tasks, which makes things easier for us."
"The dashboard is beautiful, overall easy of use, and the UBA and NBA features are valued."
"We are protecting all our workstations."
"I like the Cynet Correlator™ feature."
"The product is very easy to use. Customers really appreciate that."
"If some unusual activity happens on the network, such as I open administrator sessions in a short duration of an hour on many computers in the lab, it sends me an alert about my network saying that one user opened three, four, or five sessions in one hour. Similarly, if I try to play with the disk size on a computer, it will send me an alert, and it will also stop the operation."
"The visibility it gives is excellent."
"I have found the continued support and pretty much all the features to be valuable. They all stand out as being positive. It continues to detect unusual activity when it's supposed to, and so far we haven't had any issues."
"The initial setup is very fast and very easy."
"The solution is reliable."
"The user behavioral analysis feature is great."
"The reporting capabilities are a valuable feature. In enables more visibility on our network."
"The endpoint protection and disk encryption features are the most valuable."
"The initial setup is straightforward, not complex."
"We really like the dashboard from Trellix and we've found that it's pretty informative."
"The DLP and user interface are the most valuable feature."
"Tech support is responsive. They're good, the very best."
"For some scenarios, it provides good visibility into threats, and for some scenarios, it doesn't. For example, sometimes the URLs within the emails have destinations, and you do get a screenshot and all further details, but it's not always the case. It would be good if they did a better job of enabling that for all the emails that they identified as malicious. When you get an email threat, you can go into the email and see more details, but the URL destination feature doesn't always show you a screenshot of the URL in that email. It also doesn't always give you the characteristics relating to that URL. It would be quite good if the information is complete where it says that we identified this URL, and this is what it looks like. There should be some threat intel about it. It should give you more details."
"What could be improved in Microsoft 365 Defender is its licensing, e.g. it should be more consolidated and would be good if it has some optimizations. Improving the alerts and notifications, in terms of adding more details, would also be good for this solution."
"The solution could improve by having better machine learning and AI. Additionally, the interface, documentation, and integration could be better."
"Advanced attacks could use an improvement."
"There are still some components, such as vulnerability management within the vendor product, where improved integration would be beneficial."
"There is no common area where we can manage all the policies for the EDR, third-party solutions, devices, servers, Windows, Mac, etc., but it's on the road map, and we ware waiting for that feature."
"Correctly updated records are the most significant area for improvement. There have been times when we were notified of a required fix; we would carry out the fix and confirm it but still get the same notification a week later. This seems to be a delay in records being updated and leads to false reporting, which is something that needs to be fixed."
"While the XDR platform offers valuable functionalities, it falls short of other solutions in its ability to deliver a cohesive identity experience."
"The solution lacks URL filtering."
"Its dashboard is not so good. On the dashboard, they don't show the count for client endpoints, which is a failure of this product. This count should be shown on the dashboard. I have 1,000 clients, but I can't see it anywhere on the dashboard."
"The reporting is a little weak and could be improved. The other downside is that Cynet does not use the local time zone. It's based off of Greenwich Mean Time."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support. The support should be faster to respond."
"Most of their times are in Greenwich Mean Time. I would like to see more local time zones."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the usability of this product for new threats. Meaning, not everything which is new is properly seen by the product and not all the required actions are taken."
"The inability to add contact information inside the Cynet is also an issue because it makes things more complicated. I would like to have a simple feature to enter a contact name and number for the person taking care of that unit or that server."
"It is an endpoint agent, but they don't have a probe for checking the network traffic. They could improve from this point of view."
"An area in need of improvement involves the overview, which usually does not enable one to get the value in reports."
"It would be helpful if the controlling of connections coming to the PC could be done from McAfee's side so that we can block those connections."
"With McAfee, if there is a zero-day vulnerability, you have to download the patch for it from the McAfee website, then apply it to your endpoint."
"Technical support from the vendor is very bad."
"We have had some of our clients not happy with McAfee Endpoint Security because it blocks some of the applications they are trying to use. They should make it easier to unblock applications."
"McAfee GW Security and McAfee Child Safety need some improvement as they are relatively new."
"The solution should provide a more easy way to uninstall it on specific stations."
"The platform needs improvement in terms of handling heavy databases."
Cynet is ranked 14th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 35 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 94 reviews. Cynet is rated 8.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Darktrace, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our Cynet vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) vendors and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) vendors.
We monitor all EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) 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.