We performed a comparison between HP Wolf Security and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The stability is very good."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"It is stable and scalable."
"It has prevented thousands of potential threats by encapsulating them within its own vSentry container, thus providing overall protection and integrity of the operating system."
"The feature that stands out the most is that when someone clicks on a link in an email... [if] that link is malicious and it has some malware or keylogger attached to it, when it opens up in that Bromium virtualized browser, there's no chance of it actually being on the machine and running, because as soon as they click that "X" in the upper right-hand side of the browser, everything just vanishes. That is an added plus."
"The isolation feature is the most important because it prevents attacks."
"Our overall security posture has absolutely improved as a result of adding Bromium to our security stack. We continue to have less user impact through a significantly reduced amount of malware infections. It's become a non-event."
"I use HP Wolf Security to add a layer of safety, especially for laptops operating in various environments."
"The most valuable feature is the process isolation because it simply stops malware from infecting the machines."
"Now, instead of us having to go through that analysis, they actually give us a monthly report that shows us: "Here's what you got hit with, here's what would have happened, here are the forensics behind the attack," and, obviously, Bromium stopped it."
"We've been able to isolate and prevent malicious code from external email attachments and from downloaded internet files. Those are the two big areas that have really made an impact."
"Technical support is excellent."
"The independent modules are very good."
"The stability has been great."
"Provides protection against threats."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"The installation phase of the solution was very easy."
"I have not received any complaints about the performance."
"The extendability is great."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"When you deploy, not only is the user asked to reboot their computer, they are also asked to wait for 20 minutes while it sits there and initializes. It definitely impacts the end-user. It takes time away from their day."
"Room for improvement would be keeping up with the rate of change, specifically on Windows platforms. There are a lot of updates that come out for Microsoft Windows operating systems and the Bromium product needs to be able to keep up quickly with those updates and all the browser updates that are coming out. It's hard to do, but that's really where they need to be more responsive because we end up with problems and then we have to call support to get patches, etc."
"They have always struggled with usability. The protection that it offers you is tremendous, but there's definitely an impact with use of resources on the computer. It's gotten a lot better now with Win 10. But sometimes, when you open up a website, it's going to take longer than it would without Bromium, and it's the same with documents."
"After a major release, there's always a lot of "dust settling." You have to work through all those issues and then you're fine for a while. The problem is, it's stable, it's fine, until the next major release comes out. Then you go back into the cycle again of uncertainty, instability, working through issues until they have patched and remediated all the problems that you're having. It's not unlike any other vendor though"
"Reporting is one of the shortcomings of the product. We do mine the data that's in there from a forensics perspective... It becomes very difficult because you have to spend a lot of time digging through the volumes of data. Reporting is absolutely the biggest shortcoming."
"Initial setup was complex. There were many configurations that needed to be worked out with the vendor. The setup required hands-on assistance from Bromium."
"They need to improve the compatibility with other applications and its stability. It works well with attacks, but it doesn't work well with all software on the clients. There is a lot of troubleshooting and a lot of things that need to be tuned to make it work and not break things."
"I did not find this to be an out-of-the-box solution, it required planning and alignment across many groups."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
"The solution needs to work on memory consumption. It is too high."
"I would like to see more automation."
"Looking at the current ePolicy orchestrator, and the transition of most vendors to the cloud, they need to do an improvement with the current dashboard or the overall aesthetic of their GUI."
"In some cases, the detection part was not accurate enough. We opened a few cases for the vendor to help us with some miscategorized findings on the endpoints. There were some false positive detections, and we had to work with the vendor to get them tested. We even had some incidents that were not detected. It was a black box type of solution for us."
"The complexity of advanced modules can be improved."
"We'd like better UI on the management screen."
"The product could be flexible and offer better pricing."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
HP Wolf Security is ranked 49th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 8 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 46 reviews. HP Wolf Security is rated 7.8, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of HP Wolf Security writes "Adds a layer of safety, especially for laptops operating in various environments". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "It integrates well with other solutions, but the vendor needs more of a local presence and faster response". HP Wolf Security is most compared with Norton Small Business, Bitdefender Total Security, Microsoft Defender for Business, Kaspersky Total Security and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Open EDR. See our HP Wolf Security vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.