We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) and WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"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 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"
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"What I like most about McAfee MVISION Endpoint is that it's very user-friendly. You do need some knowledge on how to navigate the portal, but as soon as you've gained that knowledge, navigation will no longer be an issue. I have no complaints about McAfee MVISION Endpoint. For me, the product is perfect the way it is. It's great right now, and it's doing good as it is."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"Provides protection against threats."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The basic functionality is fantastic. It has been performing well. I generated a report on one machine, using that as the deployment machine. When scanning the network, it discovered machines on the network and deployed the same endpoint protection from that one machine I have on my network."
"The protection that it provides from ransomware is valuable. The awareness that it has is also valuable. It didn't have a central console earlier, but now it has a central console, which is pretty good."
"I like WatchGuard's network segmentation features. It's easy to configure user policies."
"WatchGuard is very user-friendly. It provides us with all of the security services we need."
"The analytics are important because if there is an abnormality then it provides that information to us."
"The tool provides automated responses."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation of logs from different devices."
"When you download the executable file from the internet, it automatically sandboxes to make sure it's not doing anything incorrectly."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"Detections could be improved."
"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."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"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."
"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."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"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."
"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."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
"You do not have access to all the features when you use the Trellix web interface. For example, you cannot do device or drive encryption from the web interface. Also, when we're working with customers, it's sometimes challenging to get sales support. Delays mean we might lose an opportunity. Lastly, Trellix lacks some documentation about custom features."
"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."
"The central monitoring dashboard needs improvement."
"The reporting isn't so good. If they worked to improve this aspect of the solution, it would be much stronger."
"When it comes to live-monitoring, the user-interface could be improved to make things easier."
"It can have a couple of false positives, but after you add them to your allow list, it works fine. It could have better Mac support. I am pretty sure it doesn't have much support for Mac. It can be installed on a Mac, but it is not that good."
"The website must provide more information on the product."
"The interface is not the best."
"The solution is a bit confusing and there are unusual complications with setup."
"This product needs to be fully integrated with the firewall. Currently, it only sends logs to the cloud and asks the firewall to correlate them."
"WatchGuard should offer more visibility into user activity. For example, we should have more details when WatchGuard denies a user access to a port."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 48 reviews while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is ranked 27th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 12 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6, while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response writes "Offers deployment simplicity, especially for firewalls and firewall configuration and good documentation available ". 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 WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Darktrace, Bitdefender GravityZone EDR and Check Point Harmony Endpoint. See our Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) vs. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.