Trellix Endpoint Security Previous Solutions
We did previously work with Trend Micro. We also worked with Kaspersky and also ended the contract.
Trend Micro is more attractive than Trellix from a sales perspective since most of the features are already gathered within it as one solution. The interface is much more user-friendly for the customers as well. In addition, the customer does not have to prepare a huge infrastructure requirement, to have the products already deployed. It's much easier to deal with and very stable as well. Some customers do not like Trend Micro since it doesn't have many integration points with other technology.
View full review »We did not make use of other solutions prior to going with McAfee Endpoint Security, which we have been using since 2009 or 2010. At that time, an attack happened which caused us to evaluate other antivirus security options. In those days McAfee and Symantec were the market leaders. We are talking about 2008, 2010. This is why awareness of these solutions was prevalent. At the time, Trend Micro greatly lagged behind these two security solutions.
If someone asks for a bundled solution with strong threat detection, I would recommend Trellix because it stands out as the only bundle solution with a decent amount of threat detection. While there are other bundled solutions in the market, Trellix excels in both access and detection capabilities.
View full review »Buyer's Guide
Trellix Endpoint Security
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about Trellix Endpoint Security. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Before I started with the company, it may have been using AVG. While I was not responsible for the shift, at the time I came on, the company was growing by quite a lot, which may have initiated the change in solutions.
View full review »LS
reviewer1383249
IT Infrastructure Manager at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
At the previous company that I worked for, we used Symantec Endpoint Protection. Now, we are working with CylancePROTECT and OPTICS.
The main reason that we moved from McAfee to Cylance is that McAfee is still a signature-based product. We moved to Cylance, a signatureless-based product, where everything is updated. What I was doing, from an ENS product point stance, I had set reminders to myself and my team to update the Agent and look into the software repository to see if there were any updates every month.
Indeed, every month we had software updates and fixing restrictions. It wasn't good but I now have less of a hard time looking into this from a Cylance perspective as the Cylance library doesn't push one-minute software updates per year. I would say at most, two or three software updates a year, which is very, very small from a software update perspective in comparison to McAfee.
They're both good products. I'm not saying McAfee is a bad product. It's a very, very good product. It's mainly for these reasons that we moved to Cylance.
The ePolicy Orchestrator console is good, but from my side, I would say Cylance has a better artificial intelligence module — the OPTICS module which I would say is the way to go. I haven't really seen the trend in terms of what other companies other than McAfee or Symantec are doing, but Cylance is doing a really good job with this artificial intelligence module. It's great when it comes to notifying the team when it detects something malicious.
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. With Cylance, it's not like that. Each agent does it by itself — it's like a self-healing application. This is something that signature-based antivirus solutions like McAfee and Symantec didn't have until now, unfortunately. That's why we moved towards Cylance.
View full review »We started using Symantec, then we adopted different technologies including McAfee and SSP, which includes Microsoft Defender. We keep changing based on the price structure in the market.
View full review »The decision to implement endpoint security software like Trellix is made at a company-wide level, involving discussions and agreements between various entities, including our parent company and potentially other subsidiaries like the one in Sweden. This decision isn't made independently by individual branches like Kenya; rather, it's coordinated and negotiated at a higher level.
View full review »SK
Sabari Kumar
Senior Engineer at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
I have previously used Symantec and Trend Micro.
View full review »SS
Shreyansh Sharma
Instrument and Control Engineer at a energy/utilities company with 10,001+ employees
We haven't really used another solution in place of McAfee, although we do also use Symantec.
View full review »I have used NOD32 and Kaspersky. I started using Trellix Endpoint Security because my company decided to use it.
View full review »I have used different products in the past. Since we are a consultant, we have to work with multiple vendors.
BK
consulta707208
General Manager at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
I have always used McAfee, but I know a little about Symantec. I used it more than a year ago.
MA
Miguel Vergel Adajar
Systems Engineer at First Datacorp
I have worked with other security tools, such as CrowdStrike. The flexibility of the dashboard and filtering are useful features in Trellix Endpoint Security. Also, adding different elements to the SIEM infrastructure is not that complicated with Trellix Endpoint Security.
View full review »MO
Manuel Ochoa
Support Security Engineer at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
VK
reviewer1162608
VP - Cyber Security at a manufacturing company with 11-50 employees
We've always used McAfee. There never has been another solution that the organization has tried out.
I personally have worked with a few other solutions. I'm not talking about next-generation products, like a CrowdStrike or a Carpenter due to the fact that they are a different league altogether. However, I would say I've had extensive experience with Symantec also.
In terms of Symantec versus McAfee, the two big differences are that on McAfee I am able to scale quite well and now, especially with users who are connecting from home, I can see users' statuses over the internet. That way, we can check the health of the machine and update machines remotely. That isn't the case of Symantec. Unless the user connects to back to the office VPN we will not be able to do as much.
However, where McAfee falters is the size of the modules, which are quite large.
KP
Kuldeep Patel
Senior System Administrator at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
I have some experience with Sophos and Trend Micro Apex One. I find them to be a bit better than McAfee in terms of capabilities.
View full review »SM
Syed Mohsin Ali
Team Leader Network and Mail Team at a energy/utilities company with 10,001+ employees
Being in the IT industry, we have come across different products, McAfee and Defender plus Symantec, and Trend Micro. For my needs, I like McAfee the most. Symantec might be equivalent but I like McAfee the most.
View full review »MV
Madhav Vishwakarma
Software Engineer at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
We are just using McAfee. We don't use any other solution.
View full review »DB
reviewer1442769
System Engineer at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
We tried Bitdefender, F-Secure, and many other products before settling on McAfee. When our central agency switched to McAfee, we all adopted it.
View full review »MV
reviewer1063173
Managing Director at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
At this time, we use the complete suite of McAfee solutions. However, we used to use Trend Micro.
View full review »We selected this endpoint protection solution due to its multi-platform support, not just Windows (e.g BitLocker). Other reasons were that it has enterprise key storage and recovery, which is very important to us.
View full review »As far as I know, before this company used McAfee VirusScan as a solution for these past six to seven years, there was not another endpoint security protection product in place.
View full review »SafeBoot encryption was purchased by McAfee shortly after we deployed it to our fleet of laptops. We simply inherited it by use of encryption.
View full review »I have used F-Secure, Symantec, Kaspersky Lab and Trend Micro.
View full review »I have used Symantec, not happy with their support and was facing lots of performance issues.
View full review »VB
reviewer1442568
Manager - Computing at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
We used Symantec previously. They didn't have a suite, and I wanted a suite that can give me a single control panel to manage my endpoint protection, DLP, and disk encryption. I wanted to use only a single agent with different modules so that I don't have to worry about multiple things.
View full review »I previously used Kaspersky. However, the management console does not match up to the functionality of the ePolicy orchestrator management console provided by Intel Security.
View full review »We used VirusScan Enterprise (McAfee). It worked fine, but in the end, the CPU usage was too high when doing On-Demand scans.
View full review »I have worked with Symantec before. I chose McAfee because of the security-connected framework for synchronized security, which works well to mitigate risks and to enable a proactive approach to threat responses.
View full review »I have worked with Symantec, and still do, as my firm is partner with both.
View full review »MT
Milos Tolpa
IT Engineer at FormatPC
We are McAfee partners, so I have used almost all of their endpoint products.
View full review »MA
Reviewer677
Works
McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection is the only endpoint solution we've used.
View full review »Yes we were using different solution previously. The reason we chose McAfee is because it provides us with different security solutions under one umbrella. It give us a centralized view of the health of the PCs in our organization/Network.It also offeres ease of manageability of the different product through singe user interface. Moreover, McAfee, as a part of Intel Security, can work more smartly with CPUs in comparison to other products. Also, McAfee has excellent research and support teams around the globe.
View full review »I have not used anything previously.
View full review »SB
reviewer1544757
Network Administrator at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
We used Symantec a long time ago.
View full review »MS
S.M.J.B.Samaranayake
Systems Engineer at South Asian Technologies
We did not use another solution prior to this one.
View full review »AJ
Alvaro Jiménez
operador central de monitoreo at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
The technical features and price are important for us when choosing a solution.
View full review »We had something in place previously, and this just seemed to be a better fit. Also, the management of the device worked best for our organization.
View full review »We previously used Norton, Kaspersky, and Panda. From my point of view, the basic functionality is similar, but McAfee has a more innovative roadmap.
View full review »AC
AndyChan3
General manager at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
We use Symantec as well as McAfee for endpoint protection.
We have found that McAfee has better coverage when compared to Symantec.
View full review »Started with McAfee, actually, but now we have switched to another solution.
View full review »I used a different product in a previous position.
View full review »VK
reviewer1447320
CISO at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Before switching to McAfee Endpoint Security, we were using Trend Micro.
View full review »Buyer's Guide
Trellix Endpoint Security
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about Trellix Endpoint Security. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.