We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and Trellix Network Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"In Digital Guardian, they have the cloud correlation servers that give you visibility work like EBR and the correlation server works very well for security analysis."
"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."
"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 product has helped improve our organization by being easy to use and integrate. This saves time, trouble and money."
"Before FireEye, most of the times that an incident would happen nobody would be able to find out where or why the incident occurred and that the system is compromised. FireEye is a better product because if the incident already happened I know that the breach is there and that the system is compromised so we can take appropriate action to prevent anything from happening."
"The scalability has not been a problem. We have deployed the product in very high bandwidth networks. We have never had a problem with the FireEye product causing latency issues within our networks."
"The most valuable feature is the network security module."
"Very functional and good for detecting malicious traffic."
"It is stable and quite protective. It has a lot of features to scan a lot of malicious things and vulnerabilities."
"Improved our systems and our customers' by providing better malware protection, defense against zero-day threats, and improved network security."
"It allows us to be more hands off in checking on emails and networking traffic. We can set up a bunch of different alerts and have it alert us."
"Technical support could be better."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"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."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"It would be helpful if there was an on-premise version of the solution for companies that cannot use the cloud, such as government sectors."
"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."
"Its documentation can be improved. The main problem that I see with FireEye is the documentation. We are an official distributor and partner of FireEye, and we have access to complete documentation about how to configure or implement this technology, but for customers, very limited documentation is available openly. This is the area in which FireEye should evolve. All documents should be easily available for everyone."
"Cybersecurity posture has room for improvement."
"The initial setup was complex because of the nature of our environment. When it comes to the type of applications and functions which we were looking at in terms of identifying malicious threats, there would be some level of complexity, if we were doing it right."
"The problem with FireEye is that they don't allow VM or sandbox customization. The user doesn't have control of the VMs that are inside the box. It comes from the vendor as-is. Some users like to have control of it. Like what type of Windows and what type of applications and they have zero control over this."
"The product's integration capabilities are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It is very expensive, the price could be better."
"Management of the appliance could be greatly improved."
"Stability issues manifested in terms of throughput maximization."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Digital Guardian is ranked 19th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 11 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 36 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.6. 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 Network Detection and Response writes "Blocks traffic and DDoS attacks ". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiGate and Vectra AI. See our Digital Guardian vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.
