Trellix is scalable with some limitations. I recommend it for small or medium-sized businesses.  The integration needs to be simplified for it to work in an enterprise with a large, complex environment.

I cannot comment on the scalability. I've never tried to scale the solution. 

We have been able to scale. For example, a client who wanted to migrate their on-premise solution and then move to the cloud found it to be pretty straightforward. With things like this, there is still room for improvement and there can be trouble doing that. However, with the experience that I had during the migration, it was pretty smooth and seamless.

The solution has a high level of scalability. It is easy to expand as needed. 

Considering my company's current scenario, there are around 5000 users of the solution.

The solution's scalability is easy. If you have Trellix Endpoint Security on-premises, you need to define how many agents you will support and consider future scaling. Different appliances are available for various scenarios. If you plan to have hundreds or thousands of agents in the future, hardware considerations become important. However, if it is deployed in the cloud, scaling up or down is easily manageable.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution in my organization.

The solution is scalable. It's not a problem if you would like to expand it.

We have about 430 users on the product right now. 

There are no plans to increase usage at this time. In fact, we are using it less and less. 

The solution scales well and has a lot of device plugins. I'd rate it a ten out of ten. You can do all kinds of things with it that you can't do with other endpoint protection options. 

Its scalability is perfect. In our company, we have between 2,000 and 3,000 users, but our installation has about 50,000 endpoints for all customers.

The product can scale. It’s not an issue at all. 20,000 users were using the solution with no problems.

The solution is scalable.

The companies we work with range in size from small to large. 

The solution is very easy to scale.

The platform is scalable. A minimum of five licenses are required for ten executives.

The solution is scalable. Around 3,000 users are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

I haven't had any issues with scalability. 

MVISION is scalable. 

It is a scalable solution.

The solution is scalable and works on Windows, Mac, Linux, and mobiles. 

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

It is quite scalable. We have scaled it according to their sizing recommendations. They have devices for different bandwidths, models, and offices.

We have about 4,000 people who are using this product. In terms of our plans to increase its usage, we are currently studying two options. One of them will basically scale up to about 40,000 instances.

FireEye is a cloud-based application, so it's easy to extend by purchasing more licenses. 

The solution is scalable. Maybe in another six to eight months, we will scale to around 5,500 because we are recruiting more people, so the number may increase.

It is a scalable, of course, as it is designed for enterprise use. It is scalable unless you do not configure it correctly and try to work with it without knowing how to do it.  

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

My company caters to the needs of small, medium, and large-sized businesses.

This is a scalable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. Most of our clients are enterprise-level companies with 10,000 users.

McAfee MVISION Endpoint has no issues in terms of scalability. You just need money to make scaling up possible.

This solution is scalable. However, it could improve to be able to be handle large-scale operations. The OS most systems are running I am not sure it can handle a lot of nodes but many companies are coming out with cloud options that should be able to manage much more nodes.

It's scalable enough for our needs. I don't see any problems right now. There are about 55 users in two branches of our company.

In terms of scalability, you can deploy as many agents to as many machines and protect them from the ePO, whether it's an on-premises ePO or one on the cloud.

Performance wise, it's good. The agent does not consume much process or CPU.

FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front. This is because many of its steps are related to the optimization of whole the process, it's ratings and solutions with mail, social network, input solutions, and next generation CMM like Kellogg's. All these are on the single platform called FS. I sold a lot. You can see its integration with print solutions. That's very amazing.

We have companies with a lot of endpoints. We think we have something like 4000 agents and 2 main appliances.

This solution is very flexible and scalable.

We have not yet scaled it, but I believe that it is scalable.

Our organization has 7,000 users.

It is easily scalable.

We plan to increase our usage.

We have about 20 clients who are using this solution and it is easy to scale. I would estimate the number of users to be about 400.

In our company, we have 650 users.

At this time, there are no plans to increase our usage.

We had some issues with the scalability but it was taken care of. It can be improved, however. 

The solution is capable of scaling. It's not a problem. We have the solution on around 300 endpoints. 

We have around 150 to 160 users on the solution currently.

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

The scalability is good.