We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The stability is very good."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"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."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"I am told that we get over 100 million emails a month. This filters them down and allows only somewhere about three million emails, which is a great help."
"The VPN is most valuable. It's the best thing in the market today. We can use two-factor authentication with another platform, and we can authenticate with two-factor."
"Among the most valuable features are the exclusions. And on the scalability side, we can integrate well with the SIEM orchestration engine and a number of applications that are proprietary or open source."
"Cisco has definitely improved our organization a lot. In terms of business, our company feels safer. We actually switched from legacy signature-based solutions to threat intelligence-based and machine learning-based solutions, which is Cisco Secure. This has improved our security significantly, from 10% of signature-based technology security to 99.9% of the current one which we are running. We were happy."
"The entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco and the most valuable feature is the integration."
"There are several valuable features including strong prevention and exceptional reporting capabilities."
"It provides real-time visibility and control over endpoints, allowing its users to promptly respond to any security incidents and remediate any vulnerabilities."
"The product itself is pretty reliable. The security features that it has make it reliable."
"The product is user-friendly."
"The product provides a one-click recovery of encrypted files."
"The product's initial setup phase was very straightforward since you just need to install it, and it works."
"It is a scalable solution and very easy to use."
"If there is any malicious behavior in the workstation or server, the tool stops or isolates it automatically and generates alerts."
"Blocking browser navigation is a feature of the solution with which we have experienced success."
"The biggest strength of the solution is that it's an integrated product that includes EDR and antivirus."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...I rate the solution's technical support team a nine and a half or ten out of ten."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The GUI needs improvement, it's not good."
"The thing I hate the most, which they have not fixed, is when it creates duplicate entries within a console. If you have a computer and you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, or you upgrade your agent from version 6 to 7, it creates a new instance in there instead of updating the information. Instead of paying a license for one computer, I have to license two computers until I manually go in, search for all the duplicate entries, and clean them out myself."
"In the next version of this solution, I would like to see the addition of local authentication."
"It's pretty good as it is, but its cost could be improved."
"We would like to have an API integration with a SIEM solution, because as far as I know, it currently hasn't yet been released."
"The user interface is dull."
"On the firewall level, they were lagging a little bit behind, but they are running up again. I have full trust in the new 3000 series of firewalls where we would also be able to look more into the traffic that we're monitoring and get more security layers in our services. That would definitely be a big step."
"It does not include encryption and decryption of local file shares."
"The graphical view for nodes must be increased."
"Trellix does not support Linux and Mac."
"The solution's downside stems from the fact that Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and McAfee MVISION Endpoint are not combined into a single solution, so from an improvement perspective, they need to be combined into a single solution."
"The technical support must be improved."
"One of the issues about the product stems from the failure to work on its administrative scalability. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
"An area for improvement in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the historical search. For example: when you have information on the artifact and a precedent, you want to do a search, and that is a bit lacking in the tool."
"For Spanish users, it is necessary to have a knowledge base specifically designed for them, which is currently not available."
"The main drawbacks are resources and processing time, as it consumes a lot of CPU and RAM."
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 43 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Single dashboard management, quick infrastructure threat detection, and high level support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) writes "Multifeatured, with web control, advanced threat protection, and threat prevention capabilities, but its alerting and reporting features need improvement". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and Cisco Umbrella, whereas Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.