We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) and Webroot Business Endpoint Protection 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."Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The stability is very good."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"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."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"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 features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities."
"The platform’s most valuable features are ease of use, integration, and deployment."
"The technical support services are good."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"The exploit guard and malware protection features are very useful. The logon tracker feature is also very useful. They have also given new modules such as logout backup, process backup. We ordered these modules from the FireEye market place, and we have installed these modules. We are currently exploring these features."
"MVISION offers decent protection."
"It is easy to use, flexible, and stable. Because it is a cloud-based solution and it integrates all endpoints of the cloud, we can do an IOC-based search. It can search the entire enterprise and tell us the endpoints that are possibly compromised."
"I rate the initial setup phase a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy."
"Speed"
"It is an easy-to-use and easy-to-configure product."
"It is pretty unintrusive. It doesn't take over the system like McAfee or Norton. It doesn't use a whole lot of resources. McAfee and Norton use a lot of resources."
"It is excellent endpoint protection for mobiles that does everything it says it will."
"I like that Webroot is very lightweight. It didn't bog down the machine, and more importantly, it had heuristics artificial intelligence to some degree. It wasn't like full-blown artificial intelligence, but something where you have one endpoint recognizing issues because it maintains a cloud database. If one client recognizes a threat, it would add it to the database, and almost immediately, every agent in the world would also know about that threat. That was very appealing to us. However, now it's becoming commonplace, whereas ventures like Symantec and McAfee were based more on the traditional model of definition and updates, and we were always falling behind. Webroot also has pretty good technical support."
"The initial setup is not complex at all. It's very straightforward."
"Low performance requirements."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The support needs improvement."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"The performance could be better. I noticed that it slows down a bit."
"The solution lacks device control."
"In some cases, the detection part was not accurate enough. We opened a few cases for the vendor to help us with some miscategorized findings on the endpoints. There were some false positive detections, and we had to work with the vendor to get them tested. We even had some incidents that were not detected. It was a black box type of solution for us."
"One suggestion is they should reduce the constant notifications. Whenever I open my laptop, there are too many notifications from McAfee, and it gets annoying."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
"The product is consolidating its portfolio into one product. It is difficult at the moment."
"So far, McAfee MVISION Endpoint ticks off all of our boxes, but its pricing could always be better."
"There should be better integration between the ePolicy Orchestrator and FireEye console. The integration of both consoles should be better."
"We need to have a stronger defense against CryptoLock and other attackers."
"It doesn't do anything proactive. The virus has to hit the machine before it detects it."
"It needs to improve the problems with the faster connection, and have a huge reduction in false positives."
"Unified threat management (UTM) integration."
"We need more control over when upgrades to the app are rolled out."
"One of the biggest pain points is that it's not really ransomware-oriented. They will be able to catch some, but that's where Sentinel One is a better player compared to Webroot."
"I did notice that my OS slowed down, but I don't know if that's due to Webroot."
"Technical support is not the best. It's hard to get a hold of them if we need help. It's something that definitely needs improvement."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Webroot Business Endpoint Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 46 reviews while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is ranked 34th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 30 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6, while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is rated 8.2. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Webroot Business Endpoint Protection writes "Lightweight and not hard to set up however, does not offer good reporting". 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, whereas Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Huntress, Intercept X Endpoint and Cynet. See our Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) vs. Webroot Business Endpoint Protection report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.
