McAfee Endpoint Security Competitors and Alternatives

Get our free report covering McAfee, Broadcom, Microsoft, and other competitors of McAfee Endpoint Security. Updated: April 2021.
475,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of McAfee Endpoint Security competitors and alternatives

DS
reviewer1056855
Enterprise Security Architect at a recruiting/HR firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
Nov 19, 2020
Single pane of glass allows us to run a lean team while protecting tens of thousands of endpoints around the world

What is our primary use case?

We use it for endpoint protection. It's an active EDR endpoint protection tool. Think of it as an antivirus and endpoint protection solution with machine learning, like McAfee on steroids. In our company it is deployed in 83 countries and on over 40,000 workstations and servers.

Pros and Cons

  • "SentinelOne also provides equal protection across Windows, Linux, and macOS. I have all of them and every flavor of them you could possibly imagine. They've done a great job because I still have a lot of legacy infrastructure to support. It can support legacy environments as well as newer environments, including all the latest OS's... There are cost savings not only on licensing but because I don't have to have different people managing different consoles."
  • "If it had a little bit more granularity in the roles and responsibilities matrix, that would help. There are users that have different components, but I'd be much happier if I could cherry-pick what functions I want to give to which users. That would be a huge benefit."

What other advice do I have?

Do your homework. I would encourage everybody, if you have the capabilities, to do what I did and test it against everything out there. If you don't have those capabilities and you want to save yourself a lot of time, just go straight to SentinelOne. I cannot imagine any organization regretting that decision. With the news stories you read about, such as hospitals under attack from malware and crypto viruses—with all the bad actors that exist, especially since the pandemic took over—if you want to protect your environment and sleep soundly at night, and if you're in the security industry, I…
BM
OwnChair354
Owner at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Reseller
Top 5Leaderboard
Jun 3, 2019
Easy to use, easy installation and can be installed on other servers or workstations

What is our primary use case?

We have been reselling Bitdefender for over twelve years now. Our primary use case for this solution is for a microfinance bank. They wanted a solution that can deliver security in the cloud. In fact, there was no other antivirus partner or manufacturer that has enterprise security that is hosted in the cloud. When they came to us, we told them that we have a solution that can do that, which is Bitdefender GravityZone. We told them exactly what it does: * You don't need to buy a separate server to deploy it, which is major savings for the bank. * It is hosted in the cloud. Because it is hosted… more »

Pros and Cons

  • "We have clients who are also migrating from other anti-virus solutions to GravityZone because of the ease of use, ease of installation and the fact that it can be deployed in the cloud and the same software; you can actually install on other server or workstation. It automatically knows what it's protecting."
  • "The pricing should be improved. The user interface has been improved on a yearly basis. The key issue is that they need to look at their pricing."

What other advice do I have?

My advice to somebody considering this solution would be to one, make sure that you get the exact model of the product you're looking for based on your environment. Two, you must ensure that you meet the minimum requirements because for Bitdefender if you don't meet the minimum requirements, it will not install. It will not install and if it does not install you will never know where the problem is coming from. I would rate Bitdefender a ten out of ten.
NormanCyman
IT Security Analyst at U.S. Venture, Inc.
Real User
Apr 5, 2021
Allows us to be more involved with how the business is being run from a security, risk, and compliance standpoint

What is our primary use case?

The initial use case was for CrowdStrike to be a replacement for McAfee. We wanted to come up with something that was a lot more adaptive to emerging world threats and not just strictly signature-based. We wanted something focused a lot more on heuristic analysis and pattern analysis first, e.g., isn't just sheer signature. Additional use cases are workstation servers and as much as we can do in our OT environment.

Pros and Cons

  • "From what we have seen, it is very scalable. We have recently acquired a company where someone had a ransomware attack when we joined networks. Within the course of just a few days, we were able to easily get CrowdStrike rolled out to about 300 machines. That also included the removal of that company's legacy anti-malware tool."
  • "I would like to see a little bit more in the offline scanning ability. This just comes from my background in what I have done in other positions. They only scan on demand, so I always have this fear that we sometimes maybe email out a dormant virus and can be held liable for that. That is something where I would like to see a little bit more robustness to the tool."

What other advice do I have?

Make sure you know what the policies do. There are a lot of good and bad things that you can do with too strict or too loose of a policy governing workstations or servers. We have evaluated the CrowdStrike Horizon module. We are not there yet. Our environment has not changed drastically since our last review of it. So, we have not felt the need to revisit it since then. It is important to not solely rely on one product, especially one that has a good or bad name, such as McAfee. Because there was a lot of, "Oh no, we got an antivirus. We're fine." It helps to make sure you always have an…
SB
reviewer1337973
Computer Systems Administrator at a university with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 10
Nov 24, 2020
Lacks next-generation behaviour-based detection, offers terrible technical support, and not as robust as competitors

What is our primary use case?

The use case for the solution was basically this: any computer or anything used for any sort of official business needed to have endpoint protection and needed to have some sort of antivirus protection. The thing was somewhat more than just an antivirus, it also included a firewall that operated in addition to the Windows or Mac firewall. The university policy basically required that all endpoint devices used for official business have to meet certain requirements and one of them was to have an antivirus.

Pros and Cons

  • "The solution detects malware very well."
  • "The stability was not the best. There were times when antivirus updates broke it. It wasn't necessarily self-updating - at least, not in terms of the virus signatures. It updated in terms of the executable files. Therefore, when Windows updates would come out, they often couldn't be installed, or the computer would hang due to the fact that the updates weren't compatible with the antivirus."

What other advice do I have?

The solution is a kind of a mix between an on-premise managed server that managing some machines, and other machines just had an unmanaged client that was distributed to students. It's not actually a cloud, it's a server. It's an on-premises server. It's not a cloud-based server that is being used. The antiviruses report to the server and policies can be set on the server. I'd advise users to be aware that there are better solutions out there than this. I've learned that technology can change and your solution may be great now, but in a few years, it may drop to the bottom of the barrel…
Gustavo-Lira
Senior Technical Consultant at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Consultant
Top 5
Mar 11, 2021
Good at detecting potentially dangerous websites, but the alerts can be confusing at times

What is our primary use case?

I work as an external consultant for a consulting and teaching company with around 50 employees. We teach courses and do examinations for customers that want to become certified once they complete the courses. In fact, I'm more than an external consultant yet I'm paid differently to a standard employee, and I'm using my whole technology infrastructure here. I use ESET Endpoint Security on-premises at home because everyone is working from home now and no one has worked in the office for more than a year. For general security, I use the built-in Microsoft firewall and the services offered by… more »

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable thing for me is that when I'm using the internet and I reach some site that isn't so secure, or isn't recommended because they don't have a good reputation, ESET will notify me."
  • "Sometimes, ESET sends alerts within my own network that cause confusion. That is, it might warn about contamination, or that the VM has crashed, but it doesn't go further than that. It just shows me the alert and sometimes I am not sure what to do about it."

What other advice do I have?

I have recommended ESET Endpoint Security to friends and colleagues already. As a technical person, I would recommend it based on its performance and the way in which it does not block you or get in the way when doing work. Although it could do more with preventing phishing, it catches most other problems. The solution is very good for what it is sold as, which is not necessarily a complete solution for security. And I would say that I got what I paid for. I would rate ESET Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.
Get our free report covering McAfee, Broadcom, Microsoft, and other competitors of McAfee Endpoint Security. Updated: April 2021.
475,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.