We performed a comparison between Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection and Trellix Endpoint Security 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."The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"They offer the whole package. Remote monitoring and management (RMM) is included with it, which is pretty nice. They also have Windows patching and third-party patching. It was easy to use for protection. The containment engine was pretty nice for securing our environment."
"The most valuable feature is the management of end-user machines."
"It really protects and does its job. It totally blocked every attack attempt, and no attack attempt was successful."
"It's a very easy-to-use product."
"It's stable and reliable."
"The big advantage is that it has a sandbox if something bad comes into it."
"The tool is an open-source EDR with antivirus features. It also has remote support and patch management."
"Containment is the best feature of the solution."
"McAfee EndPoint Security has a lot of good features that work well if they are implemented properly."
"This product has the capability to check a wide range of vulnerabilities and devices."
"The solution is broken down into different components from the portals. Web filtering, which is an added feature has been great for us."
"It provides a robust defense against cybersecurity threats while offering user-friendly features like notifications and approval prompts."
"What I like best is the integrated end-to-end security that works with the security information and events manager."
"The installation is pretty straightforward."
"One valuable feature is Threat Prevention with the on-demand scan."
"The solution offers very good endpoint security."
"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."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"Detections could be improved."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"They need to just modernize the infrastructure with something that is next-generation. We have recently moved to SentinelOne. It had been doing good for us for a while, but we needed something modern with new technology."
"Would be good to have a better understanding of what it is that you've got in quarantine."
"There could be MDRM features added to the product."
"They need to enhance the performance of the agents. Currently, the performance is going low when the agent starts a full scan. The agent is consuming a lot of resources while scanning. When there are a lot of documents to check, it slows down the endpoint. This is the only thing that worries me about Comodo, but this issue is also there in other products. It is missing DLP, and I know that they are working on adding some data loss prevention capabilities. They have added some capabilities, but these capabilities are not yet mature. I hope they will enhance these capabilities because it is important to prevent the data from going out from inside. We are protected from the outside, but we also have to be protected from the inside out."
"The licensing fees are high. The company should work to try to lower them for the customer."
"The quality of the analysis and the product dashboard is a bit low compared to other providers."
"There are a few minor issues such as package updates and passwords."
"Their support is not very good because they are very late to reply."
"I would like this solution to do what Palo Alto traps does because I would only need to run this one product."
"We have a lot of problems with the user experience and it's difficult to implement. MacAfee's better than the ancient anti-virus solutions but it's a little slow to resolve. Many files with malware were destroyed through the network, and MacAfee doesn't detect anything."
"We don't like the solution since it requires much memory consumption and consumes much CPU resources."
"Technical support from the vendor is very bad."
"It would be nice if the solution were to allow not just on-cloud management, but on-premises, as well."
"They can make it free, but that's not going to happen."
"McAfee GW Security and McAfee Child Safety need some improvement as they are relatively new."
"There are more secure featured solutions from McAfee on the market but for smaller companies like ours, they are too expensive."
More Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection is ranked 32nd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 14 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 94 reviews. Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection is rated 8.2, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection writes "Great features, good patch management, and useful ransomware protection". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon, Fortinet FortiClient and ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, 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 Cisco Secure Endpoint. See our Comodo Advanced Endpoint Protection vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.