We performed a comparison between McAfee MVISION Endpoint and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The solutions are similar, but differ in the features that they offer. Users of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint are happier with the price.
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The integration of Defender, Security Center, and the Microsoft compliance score, is the feature we use most to share the results with our clients and to create a roadmap together."
"It's a very complete application. I have all the controls in one site. I can track emails, attacks, and threats, and I can research information. I really like this configuration because I have all the information in place."
"The antivirus is the most valuable feature."
"The best thing I like about it is its interaction with the other Defender products. It provides the ability to push telemetry up. It gives me endpoint visibility and allows me to take automated actions."
"The patch updates and version updates are very good. Those happen on an automated basis whenever I'm connecting to the organization network, either through LAN or through the VPN."
"The best feature is the fact that for certain mobiles you can control your corporate profiles versus your personal profiles. That is amazingly important. Apple just supported the separation of corporate and personal profiles, whereas Android has been doing that for quite some time... Because Android supports that, if an Android phone is lost or stolen, I can wipe out all the corporate-related information from that phone and not touch the personal side. I can separate the apps and I can separate the ability to cut and paste between apps."
"The solution has good performance, I have not seen a problem."
"It is stable and very easy to use."
"I have not received any complaints about the performance."
"The independent modules are very good."
"FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"The investigation and forensic analysis have been most helpful."
"The platform’s most valuable features are ease of use, integration, and deployment."
"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."
"The extendability is great."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"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 solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"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."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The interface could be improved."
"The end-user also cannot do some advanced actions on it. It's a little bit complicated for our end-user, so it needs to be simplified."
"Its interface can be improved a little bit. We would like to have some sort of centralization. It should have something like a central server that is managing all the other clients. There are solutions from Kaspersky or ESET NOD32 that are really doing this kind of thing currently. We would like to see something similar from Microsoft."
"Its detection is not as quick. There should also be more frequent updates."
"There's scanning going on that occasionally topples the memory, causing everything to freeze. This should be fixed."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint does not offer default templates for alerts, requiring us to configure everything ourselves to avoid numerous false positives."
"The user interface could use some improvement."
"A concern is ransomware, whether people can penetrate and encrypt my data or steal my credit card/banking information."
"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."
"From an improvement perspective, I want everything in the solution to be free."
"We'd like better UI on the management screen."
"I hope the solution can be used in cloud systems going forward."
"Sometimes, one might face issues with the scalability of the product. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
"Intrusion detection and intervention seem to be falling behind the competition."
"The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux. We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap."
"The solution needs to work on memory consumption. It is too high."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 48 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". 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". Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Fortinet FortiClient, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), Open EDR and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Microsoft Defender for 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.