We performed a comparison between Intercept X Endpoint and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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."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 stability is very good."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"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 console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The security on offer is pretty good. We are happy with it."
"It is quite scalable. You can always add more users. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the supervisory side of it where we can watch the throughputs, and even the loading of the device, to see how much traffic is happening."
"The thing that I like about it is the synchronized security. You can tie endpoint protection and firewalls and a whole range of other services and products. You can get your servers taken in under this."
"It is not just a simple virus scanning product. It handles more advanced needs."
"The performance is good."
"I have found the most valuable feature to be the EDR."
"The Managed Detection and Response service provided by Intercept X Endpoint is highly valuable. With a team of 600-700 individuals monitoring systems, they swiftly respond to attacks, either informing us to isolate or directly removing threats. This full MDR service is especially recommended for sectors like finance, where data security is critical. The deep learning technology within Intercept X Endpoint enhances our security posture by analyzing behaviors and algorithms to differentiate between legitimate users and threats, effectively preventing attacks on our network infrastructure."
"The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities."
"The most valuable network security feature is the network sandbox solution. This sandbox feature works on traffic flow."
"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."
"A great console with a user-friendly GUI."
"It has a feature called Isolation. If a device is compromised, we can connect it to our SOC, and no one would be able to access it. This way we can limit the damage to the network while we are investigating."
"It is very valuable in finding out unknown malware."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint is stable."
"The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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 support needs improvement."
"The solution is not stable."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Detections could be improved."
"When I use a proxy, I can bypass Sophos, which is an area that needs improvement."
"Intercept X Endpoint is a very heavy solution that consumes a lot of RAM and should be made lighter."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"The deployment part needs to be improved."
"Mobile device management is a challenging area, and it can be improved. Some areas in the DLP solution can also be improved. It has the DLP capability, but it is not an all-out DLP program. I would like to see them improve the DLP solution in terms of reporting and possibly network monitoring. Currently, they only do the reporting parts of it."
"From the management side, we receive detailed information. Sophos has many features, such as Threat Hunting but that comes with the XDR version of the solution. There's Sophos Intercept X and then there's Sophos Intercept X with XDR technology. We bought the XDR and then now the MTR, Managed Threat Response version available too. They have different packages for clients which gives them different options to pick from. If Sophos could combine more features into one package it would be beneficial."
"We had some initial problems with our deployment, and they were more around uninstalling Sophos Basic and installing Sophos Intercept X. We had some challenges with some of the uninstallation scripts. They can improve the deployment of Sophos Intercept X when there is already an existing Sophos version. They can also provide more information in the form of best practices and lessons learned from previous findings. A knowledge base with this type of information would be helpful."
"The detection and the AI capabilities should be improved upon."
"Upgrading to new versions isn't easy and it can take a long time. Also, other solutions' tamper protection features are better than FireEye's. Clients should have access to our local information, but they shouldn't change settings on the system itself."
"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."
"Endpoint resource utilization causes high levels of instability and that is something that needs improvement."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
"It is a very heavy tool, unfortunately."
"The central monitoring dashboard needs improvement."
"From an improvement perspective, I want everything in the solution to be free."
"They have something called Managed Detection and Response. They get intel from their customers, and that intel is shared with the rest of FireEye's customers. I want to subscribe to their intel, but that is not available to us."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 48 reviews. Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". 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". Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Seqrite Endpoint Security, 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 Trend Micro Apex One. See our Intercept X Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
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.