We performed a comparison between Panda Adaptive Defense 360 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."Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The stability is very good."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"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."
"The interface is great."
"We have control over our devices, specifically USB ports, allowing us to block or control the traffic."
"Panda Security solution has a feature to block any unknown process and that is what is best about it."
"It offers an easy initial setup."
"The most valuable features of Panda Security Adaptive Defense are the useful hardware information it provides, light on resources, controllable from the console, remote scan functionality, and the blocking of a lot of URL malware."
"The product so far has been good at protecting us. We haven't faced a breach."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its device control."
"The protection from malware is the most important feature. It has some endpoint information about the vehicle of the virus, malware, etc. It is also stable and easy to install, and they also provide good technical support."
"MVISION Endpoint is so much easier and so much simpler for the lay security personnel to handle."
"The seamless deployment is very valuable."
"Trellix Endpoint Security has a full suite of DLP."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The setup is not that complex. It takes five to ten minutes to set up."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"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"
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"It needs some improvements in the DNS security feature. Currently, it does not have full DNS security. It only has semi-DNS security, which can be improved. It is an important feature for us, and it would be really good if they can improve the DNS security feature. Our group has some plans to change to Cisco AMP, which has features such as DNS, Umbrella. We are trying to learn about Cisco AMP and compare it with Panda."
"It needs improvements in its EDR and its ability to manage all the nodes. I'd like better communication between the console and the nodes, so I don't have to remote into each individual machine that's having an issue with the protection."
"They need to offer a clear dashboard so you can see everything everywhere all at once."
"The gap between the two final conclusions is a problem, whether or not a file is known to be malware or is known to be safe."
"Improvements could be made in terms of how the reporting is structured."
"The only part I really don't use as much is their firewall. It's a bit superfluous. Most people have their own firewall in place, so they don't really need that part portion of the solution."
"Panda Security Adaptive Defense’s stability could be improved."
"The Linux installation is performed on the command line and they need a package installer for that operating system."
"Performance is a problematic area in the solution needing improvement."
"Malware detection can be better. It doesn't have support and detection for the recent malware, but it has a compensatory control where it can do the behavior-based assessment and alert you when there is something malicious or unexpected. For example, when a certain user is executing the privilege command, which is not normal. These dynamic detections are good, and they compensate for malware detection."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
"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."
"The complexity of advanced modules can be improved."
"Intrusion detection and intervention seem to be falling behind the competition."
"Impacts performance of the servers quite negatively."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve by an overall simplification of the solution."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 25 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 48 reviews. Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is rated 8.2, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Panda Adaptive Defense 360 writes "Managing multiple machines is a pain, but support is top notch". 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". Panda Adaptive Defense 360 is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Malwarebytes, 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 Open EDR. See our Panda Adaptive Defense 360 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.