We performed a comparison between Nyotron PARANOID and Trellix Endpoint Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)."The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"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"
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"First of all, it does the job. It prevents harm to the operating system. Also, the visibility it gives to the user and to the administrator is very good."
"Nyotron protects your users and does not acquire any threat intelligence."
"It's easy to use and it's very powerful. It offers nice endpoint protection."
"It has been protecting us for many years, and we hope it will continue to do so for many years to come."
"The product’s stability and security features enhance user protection and organizational security."
"We really like the dashboard from Trellix and we've found that it's pretty informative."
"The package of protection that it provides is useful. It has antivirus, malware protection, VPN, and a whole bunch of other features."
"We receive good protection with this solution."
"The detection is great and the solution is constantly improving."
"It provides a robust defense against cybersecurity threats while offering user-friendly features like notifications and approval prompts."
"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."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"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."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"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 dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"The solution should be available on Linux and other platforms, including mobile platforms such as Android and iOS."
"The main feature that is missing is to have the same solution on servers. Currently it's only protecting the client side, not the server. If they would add the server in the same solution, that would be great."
"One of the drawbacks is that it is not 100% secure."
"Every time we open a ticket with McAfee, their response differs and they are not consistent."
"The solution has problematic encryption, which needs reforming."
"I would like to have the ability to have more control over the deployment in the next release. If you have this console in the cloud, you cannot make pilot groups for deploying the agents. We only have the current group. So, as soon as you inject the software, it will go directly into production, which doesn't work for us. We need to build up pilot groups slowly. We already requested to have this feature on the cloud, and we are still waiting."
"With McAfee, if there is a zero-day vulnerability, you have to download the patch for it from the McAfee website, then apply it to your endpoint."
"Although they have increased the complexity, it has affected the scanning speed."
"It would be helpful if the controlling of connections coming to the PC could be done from McAfee's side so that we can block those connections."
"The user interface could be improved by making it more user-friendly. There are multiple solutions and there is no clear line differentiating all of them. There is a centralized console where we manage everything but most of the administrators feel a little confused when it comes to managing multiple products from a single place."
Nyotron PARANOID is ranked 51st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 2 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 94 reviews. Nyotron PARANOID is rated 8.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Nyotron PARANOID writes "A cost-effective security solution for endpoint protection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Nyotron PARANOID is most compared with HP Wolf Security, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Cisco Secure Endpoint.
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.