We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

McAfee MVISION Endpoint Competitors and Alternatives

Get our free report covering McAfee, Microsoft, Sophos, and other competitors of McAfee MVISION Endpoint. Updated: October 2021.
542,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of McAfee MVISION Endpoint competitors and alternatives

SB
Computer Systems Administrator at a university with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
Lacks next-generation behaviour-based detection, offers terrible technical support, and not as robust as competitors

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 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.

How has it helped my organization?

The solution probably caught some malware a certain percentage of the time and that helped the organization. By the time we abandoned it, it was actually less effective, at least on Windows 10 machines, than the built-in antivirus that you get with the Windows 10 Defender Antivirus. It became, in the end, sort-of a liability.

It also became a liability when the company was sold to Broadcom. The name is actually different now. I don't think it's called Symantec Endpoint Protection. It's called Broadcom Endpoint Protection. We had a very difficult time even getting in touch with the technical support from that company, especially after Symantec was sold. It wasn't a very robust solution.

What is most valuable?

The solution detects malware very well.

What needs improvement?

It wasn't a very good solution overall, which is why we ended up replacing it.

Most organizations are choosing a next-gen antivirus, one that's based on artificial intelligence. Symantec Endpoint Protection was one of those legacy products that have been around forever. Symantec was a spinoff from Norton. Norton Antivirus was one of the very first antiviruses to come out in the 1980s. Symantec was very highly rated at one point in its life. It never really caught on to the new trends and antivirus protection. And so it still relied on things like a database of virus signatures that would need to get downloaded and then files would be checked for those signatures.

Modern antiviruses don't do that. They're based on behavior. They're based on intelligence algorithms. They're honed by artificial intelligence and machine learning from data collected all over the world. And so for that reason, the next-gen antiviruses are much more efficient at detecting viruses. They also take up a lighter load on the computer.

Next-generation is behavior-based detection rather than signature-based detection. Symantec tried to be a hybrid between the two. It had a behavior-based component called SONAR, however, it was still mostly a signature-based software antivirus application. For that reason, you can never keep up with all the mutations and viruses, and you can't keep up with malicious behavior that isn't based on viruses. Things like downloaded PowerShell scripts, things that computers can do with the components that they already have without needing to put any virus on the computer. A lot of malicious attacks, government-backed attacks, don't use any kind of foreign software. They take advantage of vulnerabilities within existing operating systems like Microsoft Windows or the various versions of Linux or the Mac operating system. They don't need to put additional software on the computer to compromise them.

That, in a nutshell, is why we switched to a next-gen antivirus. Next-gen antiviruses have probably been around for about five or six years. Some of the old companies made the transition to them seamlessly. Symantec didn't. It remained wedded to the old technology and that made it, you could say, a has-been.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for many years. It's probably been about ten years at this point, at least a decade.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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. I give it pretty poor score for robustness.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It was scalable just due to the fact that had to be installed individually on individual computers. For the unmanaged workstations, it was as scalable as you wanted it to be. There was a new download and a new install on a new computer. There are no limits on that. I'm not sure, however, how true that is, as it wasn't within my area of responsibility. I'm not sure if the managed work points overloaded the servers that were meant to monitor them. I don't think that was the case. The scalability was probably pretty good there too. I never heard any complaints about it not being scalable.

We likely had between 10,000 and 20,000 users on it. The roles would include, since it's a university, students, faculty, staff, and researchers. That pretty much covered the type of people that work at a university.

We don't plan to increase usage as we've completely phased out the solution.

How are customer service and technical support?

Once Symantec was sold to Broadcom, it became very difficult to reach out to technical support, and they just stopped being responsive. By the end, we were very unhappy with their level of support.

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

I've been at the organization for 21, 22 years. Originally, before we had Symantec, it was McAfee antivirus. We had that up until maybe about 2010 or so. Now, we are using CrowdStrike Falcon.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was not complex. It was simple.

The deployment was always ongoing due to the fact that, as a university with something like 16,000 employees, computers were getting bought and repurposed all the time. The initial rollout was in fact not a managed version of the antivirus. It was just a standalone version that users could download from a website when they provided their credentials. After that, they would just double click on a downloaded file and run the installer and they'd have the antivirus.

However, it was completely unmonitored. The antivirus program on their computer was not sending its data anywhere. It couldn't be helped by anyone remotely to do its job of protecting the computer.

Therefore, almost all organizations now want to have a managed antivirus solution where there's software installed on the computer, but it communicates with the cloud, and IT administrators at the organization can control this behavior and learn from it.

In terms of the staff required to handle the deployment and maintenance, there was probably the equivalent of maybe two to three full-time staff that were dedicated to antivirus endpoint protection issues. 

What about the implementation team?

We handled everything ourselves in-house. We didn't need the help of a consultant or integrator.

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

We pay on a yearly basis. However, I'm unsure of the exact amount.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We did evaluate a number of other vendors. We entertained some RFPs and we did testing on four other competing products. There was one other competitor that was close. The main factor that tilted us toward CrowdStrike is that they did make a last-minute significant cut in price to their offer. I think they reduced it by something like 30% or 40%.

CrowdStrike has been in the business longer and is a bigger company than the runner up as well. To us, that mattered. If there is winnowing out of competitors, if the market actually shrinks and there are a few big players in five years, we want to be sure that we're with one of the big players that are going to make it.

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. That's what happened here.

I'd rate the solution one out of ten. In order to get any sort of higher rating, they would need to start it over again from scratch. Instead of trying to make a legacy product better, they should abandon it and invent a new product.

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.
JS
Director of IT at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Responsive and fast support, easy to deploy, well-tuned to ignore false positives

Pros and Cons

  • "We have a small IT Team, and this allows us to get sleep at night, knowing that someone else is taking care of any incidents that occur."
  • "It would be nice if the dashboard had some more information upfront, and looked a little better."

What is our primary use case?

We use this product for endpoint security and threat remediation.

How has it helped my organization?

The fact that this is a cloud-native solution that provides us with flexibility and always-on protection is absolutely important, especially with a good majority of our staff working remotely, now.

We've had security incidents that occurred and within a matter of just a couple of minutes, they were completely remediated and fixed and we didn't even have to think about it. We just got the report after the fact.

Falcon's ability to prevent breaches is excellent. It's affected us in that we haven't had any downtime as a result of breaches or any malware or anything like that. Ultimately, it's given us a lot of our time back. On the IT side, this is at least five to ten hours per week. On the user side, it is probably more.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is threat remediation. We have a small IT Team, and this allows us to get sleep at night, knowing that someone else is taking care of any incidents that occur.

CrowdStrike takes care of all of the updates, so we don't even think about it or see it. This is great because we definitely spent a lot of time doing that kind of thing with our previous solution. Now that we haven't had to do it in four months, it's not even something we consider anymore.

We use both the endpoint and cloud workload protection and the detection and prevention it provides are excellent. It's tuned well to the fact that there can be a lot of false positives, so there's not a lot of potential issues that we're getting alerted about that aren't real. This means that when we do get alerts, we know that they're real and they're already being remediated for us.

What needs improvement?

It would be nice if the dashboard had some more information upfront, and looked a little better. Having a cooler dashboard is nice to have, although it is not as important as the functionality, which is very good.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for approximately four months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is great and we haven't had a single issue.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It was originally deployed to 200 users and we haven't really grown since we started, so I can't speak to scalability. This represents 100% adoption in our organization, and there are no current plans to grow. As we hire more people, our usage will increase.

There are two people who work with it on a daily basis. There is the director of IT and a network administrator.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support is excellent. I've only used it a couple of times and they were extremely responsive and very fast.

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

Prior to implementing CrowdStrike, we used BlackBerry Cylance. We switched for the ability to have full remediation so that we didn't have to do it ourselves. Also, this product is pretty much best-in-class for endpoint protection.

The only real difference that we have found with CrowdStrike, compared to Cylance, is that we no longer have to spend time remediating our issues. The detection and prevention capabilities are similar, although, with CrowdStrike, we have fewer false positives.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is extremely easy. It took me about five minutes to deploy it to my entire organization of about 200 users. The single-center process is extremely important because it's something that we were worried about, but it turned out to be a non-issue because it only took five minutes and we haven't had to think about it again.

We initially had a plan for deployment but once we found out how easy it really turned out to be, it was basically a one-step plan.

What was our ROI?

Our return on investment comes from the fact that there is less downtime for people that do get malware and other such problems. That is something that can be quantified.

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

We made use of the free trial and the process for getting set up was extremely easy. We spoke to our sales rep and in our discussions and demos, they offered the free trial. We accepted, they sent me a link and I downloaded the agent. I was then able to install it and login in less than five minutes.

Having the free trial was very important in making our decision to implement CrowdStrike because without being able to test it, it's not something that we would have chosen.

The pricing is definitely high but you get what you pay for, and it's not so high that it prices itself out of the market. That said, it's definitely one of the highest. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees and the fact that it's keeping us safe, and it's proven that it works, is worth it.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We evaluated solutions from several vendors including Sophos, Trend Micro, McAfee, Kaspersky, and perhaps another one. A lot of these other endpoint solutions don't offer a full remediation option, and that was a big deal for us.

Also, reputation was important. We had used a couple of others in the past and there were issues where they would make an update that would negatively affect all of our computers. For example, our users could no longer access certain important websites. We haven't had that problem with CrowdStrike.

In terms of ease of use, CrowdStrike is extremely easy. Comparatively, we've had less time in the administration console than we have previously.

What other advice do I have?

My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing CrowdStrike is to go ahead and do it. There is nothing to worry about and they deliver as promised.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
CM
Network Designer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Easy to set up with excellent trend analytics and isolation feature

Pros and Cons

  • "The initial setup is pretty easy."
  • "In reporting they should have a customizable dashboard due to the fact that C-level people don't like reporting to the IT department. They prefer to have a real-time dashboard. That kind of dashboard needs to have various customizations."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the product as endpoint security which we have deployed on all servers and locations. This is not limited to the endpoint, however, as it has further integration with the firewalls and email solutions. Therefore, it can give us quick visibility in case there is any malicious or suspicious activity happening.

What is most valuable?

The solution offers a very high-performance. 

The solution has analytics that watch patterns and trends. If there is a change in user behavior or communication, it has the ability to track that. 

The solution has a very helpful isolation feature. If any system gets compromised, with one click I can access the system and isolate it from other networks, and then go into further forensic investigation of the current threat without compromising anything else.

There are a lot of lead solutions in this space, however, Palo Alto is number one.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

What needs improvement?

The solution should enhance the ADR and reporting. As of right now, they are giving reports, which are okay, however, there are other ways to get better reporting. That is an area where I already requested that Palo Alto work on.

In reporting they should have a customizable dashboard due to the fact that C-level people don't like reporting to the IT department. They prefer to have a real-time dashboard. That kind of dashboard needs to have various customizations. 

They should extend the solution for URL filtering, as other endpoint security products are doing that already. Nowadays, users are working from home and therefore we have plenty of traffic back through the data center just for URL filtering security. If that functionality could be there in the endpoint, then we would be happy. It would ensure users working from home couldn't access malicious websites. 

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using the solution for one year. Before that, we were using Palo Alto Trap.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is very stable. I pretty much depend on product stability. Over the last six months, we have been able to see it's that Palo Alto is more stable than most. There is no such issue in that regard. 

This is a very stable product, whether it is running on a database or email system or on any platform. It works perfectly fine.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is very scalable. This is due to the fact that it is being managed through the cloud making it easy to deploy to a thousand endpoints. There is no issue at all. As long as there's enough space for the solution to expand, it can grow out to any size you need.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support from Palo Alto is perfect. However, we have first-level support from a third-party. They sometimes take time to respond, which is not ideal. That said, when we get aligned with the tech support from Palo Alto, that really works well. Their level one support is with other vendors, and level two and level three support is with Palo Alto. That's how they are set up. They deal with bigger issues.

Overall, we've been pretty satisfied with technical support.

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

We're service providers. We offer a variety of solutions to our clients, including Palo Alto, Cisco, Microsoft, and McAfee, depending on their needs. We don't just use or recommend one particular endpoint protection product.

About a year back I implemented Cisco and Palo Alto for our customer. Cisco AMP is also a good solution while it is running with the grid, however, I have not been involved with using it for three years.

In routing and switching, Cisco is good. However, Cisco AMP, which is an endpoint security, requires you to work with many other AMP solutions from Cisco. 

My first preference would be Palo Alto and my second preference would be Cisco AMP.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is not complex at all. It is very straightforward and very easy to implement. I implemented it for 1000 or so users, and it took only about one month to execute. Even when we were in a pandemic situation where users were at home, we did it that quickly. It is very easy to deploy.

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

The pricing is actually very reasonable. Palo Alto is very invested in some commercial endeavors and they have simplified their license. A team license can be used on-cloud, or on-prem. We have not faced segregation on any technologies, so a simple license gets any user anywhere without limitations. It is easy to increase the license as it's a cloud service. You just speak to your account manager and they can increase the licenses for you.

What other advice do I have?

While we deal with the cloud deployment model, we've also often used the on-premises deployment.

I'd advise other companies to use the solution. It really is the best one out there.

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. The reporting is a bit weak, and it's my understanding they are working on that. However, performance-wise and security-wise, this is the best product.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
CG
Manager of Information Security at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Great DLP, very easy initial setup, and quite stable

Pros and Cons

  • "The solution's most valuable aspect, for us, is the DLP portion of the product."
  • "The solution has a strange technical support process where you need to move through all of these tiers before you can get to someone who can help you. They should streamline the process and make it easier to speak to the correct level of support from the outset."

What is our primary use case?

We use the Sophos suite for a lot of things. We use it for the DLP and we can use it for the EDR. We use it for mobile device management and in application control as well. Those are some of the main uses of the application.

What is most valuable?

The solution's most valuable aspect, for us, is the DLP portion of the product. 

It's just a good endpoint solution. I can't say that it's better or worse than any other product, however, it has a pretty good feature set. There are good rules, etc.

That application, so far, is actually able to tell us if there are any issues with the machine and what they are.

What needs improvement?

I'm not sure if the solution is missing anything. For us, it seems to be covering our needs quite well.

The solution has a strange technical support process where you need to move through all of these tiers before you can get to someone who can help you. They should streamline the process and make it easier to speak to the correct level of support from the outset.

SentinelOne has what they call a rollback feature. It would be great if something similar was added to Sophos.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using the solution for the past six months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We've only been using the solution for six months. That said, it appears to be stable. We haven't had any issues. There aren't bugs and glitches, at least, not that I've experienced. It doesn't crash. It's been good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

So far, we've been able to scale the solution quite well. In terms of where we are right now, it's scaling quite well to other parts of the organization, and the experience has been pretty painless so far.

We've probably got about 700 to 800 people on it so far. We have administrators, and then first-level users, which I guess are just reviewers or support, and then support teams. That's probably about it. The security team, which is what I'm a part of, too, has access to the solution for reporting purposes.

How are customer service and technical support?

We've been in touch with technical support.

They're very responsive and very timely in their responses. We find them to be quite knowledgeable as well. That said, you hate everything with the first level call and the second level call and the third level call. However, for the most part, they're very timely.

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

This is our first EDR solution, I probably don't have much to compare it to.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was not complex at all. It was a straightforward implementation. Everything was very simple.

What about the implementation team?

We handled the implementation ourselves completely in-house. We didn't hire any integrators or outside consultants.

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

I'm not sure of what our licensing costs are. There are two and three-year packages available. I know we took a three-year package with a large discount applied to it. I'm not sure if there are different tiers, like silver or platinum. There might be. I don't know what the differences would be between them if there are.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I've seen other solutions such as SentinalOne, Carbon Black, and McAfee. I've seen them, however, to be truthful, I can't really explain what I'm missing and what features these options offer instead.

What other advice do I have?

We're just a Sophos customer. We don't have a special relationship with the client.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

In terms of adopting this technology, I'd advise other organizations to work with their integration team and know the products in and out before getting started. They will have to spend a lot of time planning the process with Sophos. However, Sophos has a team that will help companies do that, which really helps simplify the process.

We personally didn't use them for the integration piece, but we did have the conversation with how to get it deployed, and testing, and all those kind of things within our environment.

I'd rate the solution 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.
Larry Mackey
Sr Project Manager at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 5
Low maintenance with good scalability but needs better DNS support

Pros and Cons

  • "We've not had any issues with scalability. If an organization needs to expand, they can do so quite easily."
  • "Technical support is not the best. It's hard to get a hold of them if we need help. It's something that definitely needs improvement."

What is our primary use case?

All of our machines have Webroot installed on it and actively engage in endpoint protection.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the fact that it is a low profile environment as far as overhead on the machines. It continuously updates automatically. For the most part, to the end-user, it's virtually invisible, and to the admins, it's a low maintenance environment.

What needs improvement?

Tech support needs to be improved. If we have an issue, and we don't have an issue very often, trying to get support's attention is a really difficult endeavor. Their DNS support is underwhelming. There are side portions of their environment that we don't use because it creates more problems than it's worth.

The feature that we would most like to see incorporated is DNS support. At the moment their DNS solution is problematic.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for about five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's a mixed bag. From the software standpoint, it's a fairly secure environment. From a corporate standpoint, it's a significant black hole at the moment.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We've not had any issues with scalability. If an organization needs to expand, they can do so quite easily.

Every user in the company has Webroot installed on their machine From the CEO down, everybody gets it installed on their machine. We're a small company, however. We only have 20 employees. We don't have hundreds or thousands of users. Still, it's used by everyone. In that sense, I don't think we can grow the usage any more than we already have. It is 100% utilized and I'm not sure it can go any higher than that.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is not the best. It's hard to get a hold of them if we need help. It's something that definitely needs improvement. 

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

We've previously used Avast, McAfee, and a couple of other solutions and they all caused problems. When we moved over to Webroot a lot of those issues went away.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup isn't complex. It's relatively straightforward. You just have to install it on the platform. From an admin standpoint, that's the gist. You install it and let it go and then verify it on the dashboard. That's all.

Deployment is very fast. It only takes about two to three minutes.

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

I can't recall the exact pricing, but I believe there is a monthly fee of $20-30 per user.

What other advice do I have?

We're just customers. We aren't consultants or resellers.

We're using the most up to date version of the solution. All of our users are geographically diverse, so we're basically all diversely distributed.

At the moment it's a great product. They recently got acquired by Carbonite and I'm still trying to sort out what the fallout is from a corporate standpoint. Otherwise, for the near term, it's a good product. We're just a bit worried due to the fact that we've dealt with other products from Carbonite in the past and it's left a bad taste in our mouth. We're kind of looking around for other options on the assumption that the Carbonite is going to put their touch on this and destroy it like the other solutions.

Currently, as it stands as a product now, I would rate it seven out of ten overall.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Get our free report covering McAfee, Microsoft, Sophos, and other competitors of McAfee MVISION Endpoint. Updated: October 2021.
542,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.