We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"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"
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"The stability is very good."
"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."
"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."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"It has been scalable."
"Some of the features that are highly appreciated are its robust data loss prevention capabilities, flexible deployment options, and the ability to monitor data transfer across multiple vectors."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"MVISION Endpoint is so much easier and so much simpler for the lay security personnel to handle."
"The investigation and forensic analysis have been most helpful."
"It's very stable and reliable."
"The tool has contributed to improving our security posture. While it's just one part of our overall solution, it plays a crucial role. As we continue to evolve, we anticipate it becoming even more important alongside other aspects like network behavior and additional metrics."
"The independent modules are very good."
"The threat scanning is excellent. It uses predictive technology and I can utilize attack data to help us fine-tune our systems and network infrastructure. This protects us against current and future attacks."
"The extendability is great."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"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 solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"The solution is not stable."
"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."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"If the client uses Windows 10 or 11 and Microsoft updates the operating system's version, Digital Guardian must update their product to match compatibility."
"Technical support could be better."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner."
"There are a lot of issues with the current version of the Endpoint agent. It's not stable, it's resource-consuming, and there are some performance issues. If they could improve the stability of the agent it would be great."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"Sometimes, one might face issues with the scalability of the product. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
"We'd like better UI on the management screen."
"The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release."
"It has very good integrations. However, its integration with Palo Alto was not good, and they seem to be working on it at the backend. It is not very resource-hungry, but it can be even better in terms of resource utilization. It could be improved in terms of efficiency, memory sizing, and disk consumption by agents."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
"The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux. We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap."
"I hope the solution can be used in cloud systems going forward."
"The product needs to reduce the usage of RAM and CPU."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Digital Guardian is ranked 33rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 11 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 48 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "It integrates well with other solutions, but the vendor needs more of a local presence and faster response". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Zscaler DLP, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Intercept X Endpoint. See our Digital Guardian vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
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.