We compared Trellix Endpoint Security and VMware Carbon Black Endpoint based on our users reviews in five parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Trellix offers a comprehensive management console and easy setup process, with a wide range of features. However, it could improve in terms of agent communication and user experience. In contrast, VMware Carbon Black Endpoint has a more challenging initial setup but excels in continuous monitoring, incident detection and response. It could benefit from improvements in areas such as GUI, integration, and support. Overall, Trellix may have an advantage in user-friendly setup and management, while Carbon Black stands out in threat detection and response capabilities.
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"It is stable and scalable."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The stability is very good."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"I feel McAfee Endpoint Security to be a good, mature product."
"Trellix Security Endpoint can promptly isolate any host machines directly from the console. If alerts are received and isolation is necessary, it can be accomplished through the console. The console itself holds significant value, accessible through a browser and allowing remote actions via cloud login."
"The solution scales well."
"Would benefit with the addition of DLP features."
"The product is quite user-friendly."
"The endpoint security, antivirus and firewall are the most valuable features of Trellix Endpoint Security."
"I think the costing is fine compared to other products. Cost-wise you definitely get value for your money."
"It is a stable solution...The solution's technical support is good."
"Once the solution is installed and configured correctly it does not require a lot of hands-on attention until you need upgrading."
"The visibility provided has been great."
"Behavioral Monitoring stops known malicious events before they even begin."
"For Carbon Black Endpoint, the possibility of integration with different other software's log servers is the important thing. Having just one point of view is more interesting so you don't need to go to different places to see all the information."
"The product enables device controls, helping us protect the devices and prevent data leakages."
"Technical support is excellent."
"Carbon Black CB Defense has helped improve my organization by allowing us to have better data so that we can do correlation and get visibility into the alerts."
"The feature I found most valuable in Carbon Black CB Defense is the ongoing monitoring feature that works by emailing updates about any detections found."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"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."
"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"
"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."
"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."
"There are two main areas that require improvement. One is the size of the packages. Although I'll admit manageability is good, if I want to deploy, let's say just the antivirus or just the firewall, each of those package sizes are quite large. They are sometimes as big as 200MB or 250MB. When I have operations in remote areas where connectivity is always poor, it's difficult. To deploy such a package in a remote location over the internet or something like that is always challenging."
"There are more secure featured solutions from McAfee on the market but for smaller companies like ours, they are too expensive."
"The initial setup is complex. It is a very complex product. You must have experience with it."
"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."
"Tech support is not as helpful as they were in the past."
"An area in need of improvement involves the overview, which usually does not enable one to get the value in reports."
"Sometimes, while installing the ePO, we were getting so many errors and I don't know why it happened."
"Integration is difficult, but CB Defense is more powerful than others. It is difficult to implement but easy to pick up many detections."
"There are many different controls that are needed to be put into place for upgrading that makes it difficult. Having to re-engineer your IT infrastructure to match their software, as opposed to having it integrate and work independently causes difficulties. When there is an update to any software everyone has to be involved."
"In the past, we've seen some stability issues in the latest version releases. We tend to hang back one version just to make sure issues are fully resolved to avoid user disruption."
"It would be nice to have additional forensic tools that you can build into the back end."
"This product should be cheaper."
"Needs improvement in the area of infrastructure for on-premise installation."
"I would personally give the tech support a rating of seven out of ten."
"The product's reporting capabilities are an area of concern where improvements are required."
Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 94 reviews while VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is ranked 17th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 61 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0, while VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Carbon Black Endpoint writes "Centralization via the cloud allows us to protect and control people working from home". 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, whereas VMware Carbon Black Endpoint is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trend Micro Deep Security, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Trellix Endpoint Security vs. VMware Carbon Black Endpoint 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.