We performed a comparison between Trellix Network Detection and Response and Zscaler Internet Access based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)."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 server appliance is good."
"Very functional and good for detecting malicious traffic."
"Over the thirteen years of using the product, we have not experienced a single compromise in our environment. During the COVID period, we faced numerous DDoS attacks, and the tool proved highly effective in mitigating these threats."
"The most valuable feature is MVX, which tests all of the files that have been received in an email."
"The MVX Engine seems to be very capable against threats and the way it handles APTs is impressive."
"Support is very helpful and responsive."
"It protects from signature-based attacks and signature-less attacks. The sandboxing technology, invented by FireEye, is very valuable. Our customers go for FireEye because of the sandboxing feature. When there is a threat or any malicious activity with a signature, it can be blocked by IPS. However, attacks that do not have any signatures and are very new can only be blocked by using the sandboxing feature, which is available only in FireEye. So, FireEye has both engines. It has an IPS engine and a sandbox engine, which is the best part. You can get complete network protection by using FireEye."
"The VPN is valuable, as the whole technology is very different from a traditional VPN."
"The policies are very intuitive and easy to configure, with very little possibility of messing things up."
"We don't have to buy equipment to use it. And when our engineers set it up on our side, we just configured a few settings and we were in."
"The URL filtering has been the most valuable feature."
"One feature that is valuable to me from an implementation point of view is that it's very easy to implement."
"For our needs, the cloud-native proxy architecture is a very good solution. We are moving away from on-prem appliances and moving more toward cloud-based solutions. Zscaler is a good fit for our strategy. This architecture helps with cyber threats because we inspect most of the traffic and we can see that a lot of threats are stopped directly in the secure web gateway."
"The solution is scalable and stable."
"Zscaler covers all the features needed to replace a VPN or proxy solution. They are good. They've been on the market for 15 years now, so they are mature enough."
"It doesn't connect with the cloud, advanced machine learning is not there. A known threat can be coming into the network and we would want the cloud to look up the problem. I would also like to see them develop more file replication and machine learning."
"I would love to see better reporting. Because you can't export some of the reports in proper formats, it is hard to extract the data from reports."
"The world is currently shifting to AI, but FIreEye is not following suit."
"It would be very helpful if there were better integration with other solutions from other vendors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto."
"It is not a very secure product."
"Stability issues manifested in terms of throughput maximization."
"A better depth of view, being able to see deeper into the management process, is what I'd like to see."
"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 pricing is an issue. It is expensive if you have all of your users in the same location. It is expensive compared to other firewalls on the market."
"I don't know whether it's Zscaler or not, however, sometimes I can't access my time management. I need to wait and try again a few hours later. Typically, if I let some time pass, I can access it again."
"Sometimes, support isn't available."
"The solution is expensive. They recently revised the pricing and packaging. Some of our existing customers have been asking for alternate solutions for a lower price."
"There are a few features that are not compatible with the Azure cloud."
"We'd like for them to include some sort of antivirus tool."
"Zscaler Internet Access can improve by adding traffic filtering based on the DNS."
"Cloud App’s database should be improved."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 37 reviews while Zscaler Internet Access is ranked 2nd in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 46 reviews. Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.4, while Zscaler Internet Access is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Offers in-depth investigation capabilities, integrates well and smoothly transitioned from a lower-capacity appliance to a higher one". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zscaler Internet Access writes "Provides integrated CASB and file sandboxing but could be less expensive ". Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Fortinet FortiGate, Vectra AI and NetWitness Platform, whereas Zscaler Internet Access is most compared with Cisco Umbrella, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and FortiSASE .
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.
