We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiClient and Trellix Network Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The stability is very good."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"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 product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"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."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The most valuable feature is that it's easy to deploy. Deployment, configuration, and troubleshooting are very easy."
"You can scale the product."
"It is very easy and useful. A normal user with basic information can easily connect to any environment."
"The VPN has proven to be quite useful."
"It’s easy to use."
"It is a feature-rich product that is easy to use and install without sacrificing security."
"Having a centralized console is a valuable feature. The Fortinet fabric is also very valuable where all different pieces talk together to secure our network and track the North, South, East, and West movement of files and data through our network."
"We find the VPN features valuable."
"The server appliance is good."
"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 solution can scale."
"The product is very easy to configure."
"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."
"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 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."
"I also like its logging method. Its logging is very powerful and useful for forensic purposes. You can see the traffic or a specific activity or how something entered your network and where it went."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"The solution is not stable."
"Detections could be improved."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"I would like for the next release to be more user-friendly for users to do not have as much of a technical background."
"The software inventory part is not yet up-to-date. It doesn't have a great interface, which is a disadvantage. I wish we could leverage it, but we don't use it at all because it's not that reliable."
"The connectivity could be improved."
"The initial setup was probably more complex. The configuration was somewhat unclear."
"There should be more frequent releases or updates."
"More integration would be beneficial."
"The price could also use improvement."
"When we change our endpoint, we have to connect again, which means having to enter our credentials and permissions."
"Technical packaging could be improved."
"The product's integration capabilities are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It is not a very secure product."
"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."
"FireEye Network Security should have better integration with other vendors' firewalls or proxies, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet. Files that are being submitted should happen through the API or automatically."
"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."
"Certain features in Trellix Network Detection and Response, such as using AL-type commands, may initially pose a challenge for those unfamiliar with such commands. However, once users become accustomed to the system, it becomes easier to use."
"Technical support could be improved."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 16th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 85 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 35 reviews. Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiClient writes "Easy to set up and user-friendly with good support ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Blocks traffic and DDoS attacks ". Fortinet FortiClient is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and Ivanti Connect Secure, 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 Fortinet FortiClient vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response report.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.