PeerSpot user
General Manager at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 10
The central management console is powerful.
Pros and Cons
  • "The central management console is powerful. You can manage endpoints, DLP, encryption, and all the other features from a single console."
  • "Trellix lacked email protection when it was a McAfee product. They added this feature during the merger with FireEye, but it hasn't been fully integrated. The core features will be integrated into the next release. FireEye has several solutions for EDR and sandboxing."

What is our primary use case?

We use Trellix to secure our customers' endpoint devices and the cloud. It was a McAfee solution before the Trellix acquisition. Trellix has a full portfolio for local and cloud protection. McAfee MVISION products are managed on the cloud, but some customers need an on-premise local management console.

What is most valuable?

The central management console is powerful. You can manage endpoints, DLP, encryption, and all the other features from a single console. 

What needs improvement?

Trellix lacked email protection when it was a McAfee product. They added this feature during the merger with FireEye, but it hasn't been fully integrated. The core features will be integrated into the next release. FireEye has several solutions for EDR and sandboxing. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have used Endpoint Security for more than 10 years.

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.
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I rate Trellix nine out of 10 for stability. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I rate Trellix 10 out of 10 for scalability. 

How are customer service and support?

I rate Trellix support nine out of 10. 

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have always used McAfee, but I know a little about Symantec. I used it more than a year ago. 

How was the initial setup?

I rate Trellix seven out of 10 for ease of setup. It is a complex tool, but you can use many of the new features while you're installing it. The deployment time varies depending on the number of endpoint accounts and how the client is distributed. It typically takes less than a day for a large enterprise. If nothing goes wrong, you can finish in a few hours. One person is enough to deploy and maintain it. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I rate Trellix five out of 10 for affordability. It isn't cheap, but not expensive.

What other advice do I have?

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security nine out of 10. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:
PeerSpot user
PeerSpot user
IT Manager at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Simple and straightforward with good rogue detection and web filtering features
Pros and Cons
  • "The solution is broken down into different components from the portals. Web filtering, which is an added feature has been great for us."
  • "On the next release, they should build an easier way to see a repair option within the McAfee icon on your system tray. If there was an issue, you should be able to contact the user or just right-click on "repair". That would be a very good feature to add. That could be a place of improvement, just adding that button, or customizing it."

What is most valuable?

The solution is broken down into different components from the portals. Web filtering, which is an added feature has been great for us. Other than that, we also make use of other products under McAfee, so it was DLP, HIPS, as well. Rogue Detection is more for detecting and managing systems on our network. That worked very well for us. From an interface point of view, it's really simple and straightforward.

What needs improvement?

On the next release, they should build an easier way to see a repair option within the McAfee icon on your system tray. If there was an issue, you should be able to contact the user or just right-click on "repair". That would be a very good feature to add. That could be a place of improvement, just adding that button, or customizing it.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for 1.5 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We have good compliance. Compliance is using it at the moment, so we work 90% plus. It works well. It's being used on a daily basis and runs very well.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is simple to scale. In South Africa, we have about 12 to 18,000 deployed and over 18,000 Endpoint users. We have two servers as well. 

How was the initial setup?

Installation was a bit complicated right in the beginning. We obviously had to use a different extension and some of the policy had to be modified, changed or migrated across, but there were no other issues.

What other advice do I have?

I've been using the Complete Endpoint Protection for maybe a year and a half, but the other half of the McAfee Suite, the McAfee Virus Enterprise, I've used since 2012 and then it migrated to McAfee Endpoint.

From a customer point of view what they need to look out for is just mainly some of the products that they use to make sure the exclusions are correct. The processes that they need to exclude, as well, are done correctly. It is mainly on the exclusions to ensure they don't have any impact.

I would rate this solution eight out of 10.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
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.
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Systems Engineer at First Datacorp
Real User
Top 10
A solution with a flexible dashboard that can be used for setting up data storage via ELM
Pros and Cons
  • "Trellix Endpoint Security's dashboard is very flexible, and I can create my own user-specific dashboard depending on user privilege or preference."
  • "It would be a lot easier if I could add multiple user accounts within a single device."

What is our primary use case?

Some of the solution's primary use cases include successfully adding devices through ESM GUI and setting up data storage via ELM.

What is most valuable?

Trellix Endpoint Security's dashboard is very flexible, and I can create my own user-specific dashboard depending on user privilege or preference.

What needs improvement?

With Trellix Endpoint Security, adding a device as a data source can be done one by one. Whenever I try to add a device like a firewall or a server, the accounts are enrolled one by one per added data source. It would be a lot easier if I could add multiple user accounts within a single device.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been testing Trellix Endpoint Security for around three months.

How are customer service and support?

I have tried to contact the solution's technical support team. Whenever I tried to ask for partner support, the Trellix website would ask for my company email details. Then an email would come to my inbox saying that Trellix would get back to me shortly, but unfortunately, they did not. So I couldn't contact Trellix Endpoint Security's technical support.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

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.

How was the initial setup?

There's no need for any additional configuration settings to install Trellix Endpoint Security. You just access the web UI, and that's it.

What about the implementation team?

It took me two months to implement Trellix Endpoint Security because of our company's hardware limitations.

My implementation strategy for Trellix Endpoint Security was to build a demonstration based on what the company would like me to do. So I built a SIEM infrastructure and got the images of the different tools first. Then from there, I tried to connect the different devices before I connected the data sources.

What other advice do I have?

My advice is that users should have a fair background in MQL, which really helps a lot in investigating.

Overall, I rate Trellix Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Flag as inappropriate
PeerSpot user
CyberSecurity Engineer at a government with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Scalable and quickly deployable, but they should try moving away from the signature-based model
Pros and Cons
  • "It can be deployed quickly, and it's scalable. Those are the two advantages of it."
  • "Trying to move away from the signature model for antivirus and malware blocking is something that would be nice. Instead of having to update every day, which is signature-based, moving to more of a kernel or architecture-based model would probably be beneficial."

What is our primary use case?

It covers the AV and malware security piece.

How has it helped my organization?

It's mainly for compliance. In terms of products in the market, it's probably not the best, but it's the one that is already paid for under the corporate buy. It basically checks the box that we're doing malware threat prevention and antivirus protection.

What is most valuable?

It can be deployed quickly, and it's scalable. Those are the two advantages of it.

What needs improvement?

Trying to move away from the signature model for antivirus and malware blocking is something that would be nice. Instead of having to update every day, which is signature-based, moving to more of a kernel or architecture-based model would probably be beneficial.

For how long have I used the solution?

It has probably been about a year since we rolled it out.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

There are no issues. They continue to put out updates weekly or daily. The platform seems to be fairly mature.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's definitely scalable.

How are customer service and support?

Their tech support is average.

How was the initial setup?

It's pretty straightforward. It can be automated from the central ePolicy orchestrator server. So, the installation is fairly easy because you can automate it with the deployment of your virtual machines and things like that.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I would rate it a three out of five in terms of cost.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate it a seven out of ten. That's mainly because it seems like there are additional security features that could be built into it, or from the signature-based model, it could move to a different model.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
CEO & MD at Gurjartech
Real User
Good DLP but offers problematic encryption
Pros and Cons
  • "The solution is reliable."
  • "The solution has problematic encryption, which needs reforming."

What is most valuable?

I have found DLP to be a valuable feature.

What needs improvement?

When it comes to DLP or McAfee Security Encryption, with which I am happy, I like to make use of the solution for Vault, but find that the encryption is problematic. The system needs reforming. Suppose the solution is utilized on a laptop or desktop and the client wishes to make an assignment to another person but forgot his password. The data cannot be archived or backed up. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for the past five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is reliable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Previously, I used the solution for a single site consisting of nearly 300 users. However, as I found it to also be a good tool for DLP endpoint, I now use it for another client with nearly 700 users.

How are customer service and technical support?

Counting from one to ten, this being the highest, I fully support the solution's technical services.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is very simple, allowing a person to get the videos or documents on the internet. 

The deployment takes one to two days.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I do licensing on an annual basis and this is what I always recommend to my clients over the monthly option. This is because all my clients are long-term and do not wish to pay on a monthly basis, instead preferring licenses of, perhaps, three years with an additional one or two year option. 

What other advice do I have?

I am using the latest version of the solution minus one. 

Some of our clients deploy the solution on-premises and others use clouds, such as AWS or IBM Cloud. I'm actually a service partner with IBM Cloud and the community manager with AWS Cloud.

We currently have two or three clients utilizing the solution and it can be said that it is a good product. 

The solution is really good and competitively priced, so someone wishing to secure his enterprise or make use of it in an inexpensive fashion should do so. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Support Security Engineer at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
An endpoint security solution with a valuable threat prevention feature
Pros and Cons
  • "Threat prevention is valuable because most clients use other solutions like antivirus as part of web protection. I don't find that kind of solution useful."
  • "The local technical support could be better."

What is our primary use case?

I work for a company that is a McAfee partner. We sell the solution, and we have engineers that implement the solutions. Basically, I am part of the technical staff that implements the solution on-premise.

We use endpoint security for our clients. We configure policies to scan the computer every single day in some cases and every week or even every moment. Basically, it protects the endpoint, and we have policies to do advanced threat protection.

How has it helped my organization?

Thanks to the implementation of this tool, we have managed to avoid massive virus infection, have visibility into console events and be able to implement action plans to contain threats.

What is most valuable?

Threat prevention is valuable because most clients use other solutions like antivirus as part of web protection. I don't find that kind of solution useful. We use the firewall to protect the client's network or even blocks and some kind of traffic that the computer received. The ATP model, I think, is one of the most important features because it can protect the computer when an application doesn't work as expected. It will alert and send messages to the ePO, and we can see everything.

What needs improvement?

The local technical support could be better. It would also help if the engineers can develop some automation features for the on-prem ePO. For example, in the on-prem ePO, you can store the endpoint using the IP address or using text, or using the default version. But in the MVISION ePO, you don't have that kind of feature. It's complicated to sort the endpoint because you have to do it manually.

I also think the detailed level of the detection could be better. In some cases, it's very complicated to figure out which file is the one that is actually impacted, depending on the dashboard you see. The dashboard is one of the most important things in the ePO because it's where you can see everything in a central location. But sometimes, you need to change from one view to another view to find what you're looking for.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for about three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's very stable. It works as expected, and I am very happy with this solution.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

This is a very flexible product. It can be installed on a single physical or virtual server, or well installed on a windows cluster, and if you want to explore other modes it can also be implemented in the AWS cloud or as a SAAS.

How are customer service and technical support?

In some cases, if the report comes from India or America, it's basically an open and shut case. But if the support comes from Latin America, you probably have to scale that problem to another area or another region. You need a person that has more experience with the product.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

No. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup can be both straightforward or complex. Some documentation on clients is very slow. Basically, we spent time implementing the ePO version because sometimes the database from the ePO is too big, and we need to do some things to the database to shrink the space, and it doesn't always work as expected. Sometimes, we have to follow one, two, or three steps to get the data and various scenarios to increase the number of steps because troubleshooting wasn't working.

If we implement MVISION, eventually, it would take around three hours because we have to install the software on the server. We have to do all the upgrades and implement some upgrades to the ePO software. Basically, it's three hours, but it can take five to six hours, depending on the data's size.

What about the implementation team?

We implement this solution for our customers. If you are an engineer, and you have the experience, you can do it. If someone doesn't have experience with the OS, with Windows, or with the product, you might need specialized engineers.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

For the issue of implementation costs, you require that the partner you use has qualified personnel to carry out this activity or you can use the professional services of McAfee, but these can be somewhat expensive.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Our clients ask us about other solutions like Cylance. I have one client that uses CrowdStrike. If you compare Cylance and McAfee Endpoint Security, the main difference is support. 

McAfee is excellent. You can ask any questions, and with a couple of clicks, you will find the answer to the issue. If you don't find it, you can open a support ticket. Sometimes, the McAfee solutions are very complex to configure. Just in some topics, but on the other hand, very simple to configure.

What other advice do I have?

I recommend that the client needs to be aware of what McAfee can do for them. If the engineer can implement the solution, he'll just follow the book, and he's not going to get the best experience from the product.

To not impact the computer or the endpoint's performance, you need to finetune the policies. If the engineer doesn't have that kind of experience, you won't get the best out of the product. The client needs to get an engineer with a lot of performance tuning experience to get the most out of the product.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give McAfee Endpoint Security a nine.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
PeerSpot user
VP - Cyber Security at a manufacturing company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Very scalable and easy to manage but package size is too large
Pros and Cons
  • "The manageability of the product itself is its most valuable aspect. You have the underlying EPO, and on top of it, you can deploy the various components as you require. This is unlike other solutions like Symantec where you have to deploy everything or nothing. With this solution, you can choose to only deploy antivirus or only deploy a firewall, or only something else. I choose the components and that deployment is done through EPO. It makes manageability very flexible."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

The solution has three primary uses for us. 

Our environment is Windows-based. We don't have Mac and very little space for Linux systems. We use the solution on all of our Windows devices as a basic antivirus protection. That's our first use case.

The second use case for the solution is to be able to have USB restrictions on my endpoints. 

And the third would be the protection of machines when, especially now in this COVID-19 climate, users connect from home. There are a lot of network-based attacks. When users are connecting from other networks, they're protected from dangers with this solution

What is most valuable?

The manageability of the product itself is its most valuable aspect. You have the underlying EPO, and on top of it, you can deploy the various components as you require. This is unlike other solutions like Symantec where you have to deploy everything or nothing. With this solution, you can choose to only deploy antivirus or only deploy a firewall, or only something else. I choose the components and that deployment is done through EPO. It makes manageability very flexible.

What needs improvement?

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. 

The second improvement I would like to see would be to make the speed of the updates much faster. I've seen other vendors that have already released an update for new ransomware and yet McAfee has not. They seem to generally delay releasing an update to protect against something, which can be dangerous as it gives malicious content time to spread. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the product for almost two years at this point.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I would say on a scale of one to 10, the scalability would rate at an eight. It's not perfect and there's room for improvement. However, it's generally been stable for us.

We've seen some versions of McAfee not functioning correctly. Then, suddenly, we had to put in a patch. Occasionally, the notes are not there and when we raise a ticket with the support they came back and say, "Oh no, no, this version has a bug, you guys will need to move to a new version."

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability of the solution is good. We've actually scaled up, so we can speak from experience. We initially rolled out to a smaller set of users and then eventually to our entire base. We've scaled up to about 15,000 users at this point. There were no issues in doing so. It's quite straightforward to expand outwards as needed.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support I would say is average. A lot of times we've gotten standard responses from support. They don't really offer a solution. The responses that we have gotten from support is something that we have already tried or they'll simply tell us to move to the next version. That requires us to deploy to 15,000 users. They don't go out of their way to be helpful. 

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

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.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was simple and the deployment itself was straightforward. The was no complexity in terms of the architecture or the initial deployment of the solution.

I came into the organization when McAfee was already deployed. However, I've set up some other packages. For example, although McAfee was already deployed, the USB blocking features module, took about two months I would say to deploy across the network.

We have a team of approximately four people the deploy patches and updates and generally maintain the solution.

What about the implementation team?

We deployed the solution ourselves and continue to deploy any ancillary modules on our own as well. We don't need the outside assistance of consultants or integrators. We have a team that manages these items in house.

What other advice do I have?

I would advise, if somebody's looking at buying a brand new solution fresh or have a solution coming up for renewal, to look at the next generation antivirus products. The next-generation products are far more sophisticated. They might be a little higher in price, but in terms of manageability, updates, and the packet size, they are far superior. 

McAfee has released something called Envision. It's a next-generation antivirus. In this other solution, they have incorporated a lot of next-generation technologies. It's a different license and a higher-priced license altogether. 

Overall, I would rate this solution seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Works at a government
Real User
Centralized administration controls, always improving, and reliable
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable feature is the centralized console where everything can be controlled by the administration."
  • "There are times the solution has some additional software added that is not fully integrated properly, such as Exchange Group Sheild. It is quite old and is not fully integrated properly and could be improved."

What is our primary use case?

I use this solution for system security protection.

How has it helped my organization?

McAfee has helped our organization by keeping all of our computer systems secure from viruses or other intrusions.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the centralized console where everything can be controlled by the administration. McAfee is always improving and is coming out with advanced cloud strategies, you can always rely on them now and for many years ahead.

What needs improvement?

There are times the solution has some additional software added that is not fully integrated properly, such as Exchange Group Shield. It is quite old and is not fully integrated properly and could be improved.

In an upcoming release, there could be an improvement in performance. There are times the solution can use a lot of resources on the local machines. This normally happens when the system is scanning, the end-user can really notice the performance change. After every new version that is released, there are improvements made. However, there is still room for improvement.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for approximately 15 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is good, whenever there is an issue there is an update or solution to fix it shortly after.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability has been good for us, we have not expanded very much to know more.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support could be improved. We currently have business support and this has been a lot better than the regular support. The business support is more responsive and the resolutions are more thorough. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The price of the solution is fair, we have a complete security package.

What other advice do I have?

The solution is very good but it is useful and important to have good experience with the endpoint testing machine.

I rate McAfee Endpoint Security nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Muhammad Ejaz ul Hassan - PeerSpot reviewer
Muhammad Ejaz ul HassanCEO at RISE Technologies
Top 5Real User

Centralized administration controls refer to a system in which one centralized authority manages and controls a network, system, or organization. This approach allows for more efficient management and control of resources, data, and security.


Continuous improvement is a key aspect of any successful organization, and centralized administration controls can facilitate this by providing a framework for evaluating and implementing improvements in a systematic manner. With a centralized system, updates and improvements can be rolled out uniformly and quickly, reducing the likelihood of errors or inconsistencies.


Reliability is also an important characteristic of a centralized system. Because there is a single point of control, it is easier to ensure that all components of the system are functioning correctly and that any issues can be addressed promptly. This can result in increased uptime and better overall performance.


However, it is important to note that centralized administration controls can also have drawbacks. For example, they can be vulnerable to single points of failure, and they may not be as adaptable to changing circumstances as decentralized systems. It is important to carefully consider the specific needs of an organization before deciding whether a centralized or decentralized approach is best.

Buyer's Guide
Download our free Trellix Endpoint Security Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
Updated: March 2024
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Trellix Endpoint Security Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.