We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security and Forescout Platform based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Trellix Endpoint Security users like the ePolicy Orchestrator, the solution’s robust central management console. Forescout Platform stands out for its agentless visibility and advanced features like device fingerprinting. Trellix could improve by reducing resource usage, enhancing stability, and making the solution more user-friendly. Users say Forescout could be better at resolving connectivity and license issues. Users want better device compatibility and troubleshooting tools.
Service and Support: Some users say Trellix support is helpful and responsive, while others believe there is room for improvement in communication and resolution times. Some users reported positive experiences with Forescout support, but others requested better responsiveness and training.
Ease of Deployment: Setting up Trellix Endpoint Security is simple if the user has some expertise. Some users found Forescout’s setup to be simple and adaptable, while others perceived it as more complex and time-intensive.
Pricing: Trellix Endpoint Security’s pricing is considered flexible, competitive, and about average compared to other solutions. The total cost of Forescout Platform can be high depending on the level of customization and integration required.
ROI: Users reported saving time by implementing Trellix Endpoint Security. Forescout Platform yields a solid ROI by improving network access control and overall security.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Trellix Endpoint Security over Forescout Platform based on user feedback. Users like Trellix's comprehensive management abilities and single-pane-of-glass administration. It is praised for its reliability and low false positive rate. Forescout Platform receives mixed reviews for its complex setup process and customer service. It is also considered expensive.
"I like Defender XDR's automation capabilities. XDR isn't automated by default, but you can automate it to respond. If an attack is performed anywhere within the organization, you can isolate that instance from the network. This is what I can figure out for it. When integrated with Sentinel, you can set up playbooks to automate all the alerts gathered on Sentinel from different Microsoft solutions. Sentinel has a wider range of capabilities than XDR."
"We also use Microsoft Sentinel, Defender for Cloud, Defender for Identity, and Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps. They are all integrated and it was very easy to integrate them. In my experience with the integrations, it was just a click of a button and things were integrated. It's just a button."
"The integration between all the Defender products is the most valuable feature."
"Within advanced threat hunting, the tables that have already been defined by Microsoft are helpful. In the advanced threat hunting tab, there were different tables, and one of the tables was related to device info, device alert, and device events. That was very helpful. Another feature that I liked but didn't have access to was deep analysis."
"Microsoft XDR's system of analysis and investigation is super convenient for our customers. It integrates with other Microsoft solutions like Defender for 365 to protect email traffic from malicious external web links and phishing."
"For me, the advanced hunting capabilities have been really great. It allowed querying the dataset with their own language, which is KQL or Kusto Query Language. That has allowed me to get much more insight into the events that have occurred. The whole power of 365 Defender is that you can get the whole story. It allows you to query an email-based activity and then correlate it with an endpoint-based activity."
"Microsoft Defender XDR provides strong identity protection with comprehensive insights into risky user behavior and potential indicators of compromise."
"The most valuable feature is probably the aggregation and correlation of the different telemetry points with Defender for Identity, Defender for Endpoint, and Defender for Cloud Apps. All of these various things are part of that portal. We've wanted that single pane of glass for years."
"I can integrate Forescout with products from multiple vendors in my environment, and also, the integration is searchable. It can be used with 802.1X and non-802.1X to integrate with my existing network. I don't need to upgrade any existing networks in my system, and I don't need to replace existing devices to integrate with Forescout. I find value in not having to spend money upgrading existing devices and networks."
"The stability is amazing for the Forescout Platform. We have been using Forescout for four years, and no one complained about the stability."
"Vulnerability remediation is valuable. We can narrow down a system and its properties. We can go granular on the properties of each endpoint, such as which operating system you're using."
"We really like that we get full visibility of devices in the local network."
"The visibility is the main benefit. We now know how many devices are connected, what the use for each device is and what kind of devices we have in our environment."
"I have noticed that in the last year the license model has changed from licensing the whole appliance to licensing the number of devices. It's more simple for a large installation, or a user to have CounterACT as their peripheral site in the company. It's a good choice to have changed the license policy."
"We use the Forescout Platform for device visibility and control in our network. It's very helpful for tracking malicious or unusual activity. We use it to track which ports are open, which machines are running specific services, and to identify vulnerabilities. For example, there was a vulnerability related to SMB, and we could use the product to determine which machines inside our organization were allowing SMB traffic."
"Forescout Platform has granular features and one of the most impressive features is the agentless feature."
"The most valuable feature of Trellix Endpoint Security is containment, which takes less than a minute."
"The loss prevention feature would be the most valuable."
"It has a very simple like multi-tenancy option and scalability is outstanding."
"The new central console is better than the earlier one."
"Their malware detection rate is excellent for all type of devices and the anti-theft products are good and easy to use."
"The solution includes a good combination of features for both signature and signature-less."
"It's quite easy to install agents."
"The solution provides dashboard control, so we can centrally monitor the entire status of our organization."
"The solution could improve by having better machine learning and AI. Additionally, the interface, documentation, and integration could be better."
"The onboarding and offboarding need improvement. I work with other vendors as well, and they have an option to add a device or remove a device from the portal, whereas with Microsoft 365 Defender, we need to do that manually. However, once you do that, everything can be controlled through the portal, but getting the device onboarded and offboarded is currently manual. If we have an option to simply remove a device from the portal or get a device added from the portal, it would be more convenient. The rest of the features are similar. This is the only area where I found it different from others. I would also like to be able to simply filter with a few of the queries that are already there."
"It would be helpful if the solution could scan faster when it comes to scanning attachments to emails."
"The price could be better. It'll also help if they can continuously update and upgrade the solution. Every day there's a new virus uploaded into the network, and we have to keep updating it to identify all these things."
"365 Defender has multiple subsets, including Defender for Cloud Apps. When integrating Defender for Cloud Apps with apps on third-party cloud platforms like AWS or GCP, there are limitations on our ability to control user activities. If Microsoft added more control over third-party products, that would be a game-changer and help us quite a lot."
"Correctly updated records are the most significant area for improvement. There have been times when we were notified of a required fix; we would carry out the fix and confirm it but still get the same notification a week later. This seems to be a delay in records being updated and leads to false reporting, which is something that needs to be fixed."
"From an integration standpoint, it is always improving overall. With Security Copilot coming out, as partners, we are waiting for the GDAP support so that we can actually see Security Copilot on behalf of customers if they subscribe to it."
"When we do investigations, it would be better if Microsoft could populate the host dashboard more. When we open any host for investigation, we want the entire timeline of what is happening on the host, including all the users logging in, their hardware, Windows version, etc."
"Search - needs boolean functionality (or pseudo operand now working)."
"Multitenancy should be included in the next version so it could be used as a managed service provider."
"Forescout Platform could improve the integration or compatibility with other solutions, such as Chinese-made solutions. They do not have any integration with S33 which is a switch. They do not have good integration with new solutions in the market. They do integrate well with Rocket, Cisco, Juniper, and quite a few more but they could expand the integration."
"The ability to block external devices in Mac is lacking and needs to be added."
"Forescout needs to upgrade its development in the future."
"Can be expensive if it's only being used for one feature."
"The system controls could be better."
"Forescout Platform could improve the vulnerability management as well as the control on the endpoint, which needs to be connected to my network."
"The tool could provide more advanced protection."
"There are certain shortcomings in the features concerning DLP in Trellix, where certain additions must be made in the future."
"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."
"Sometimes, while installing the ePO, we were getting so many errors and I don't know why it happened."
"I've encountered minor challenges related to encryption."
"Its pricing needs to be improved."
"Signatures to protect against new attacks."
"The initial setup isn't so easy. You need to know what you are doing."
Forescout Platform is ranked 12th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 69 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 95 reviews. Forescout Platform is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks and Ivanti Endpoint Security for Endpoint Manager, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our Forescout Platform vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) vendors.
We monitor all Extended Detection and Response (XDR) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
