We performed a comparison between CrowdStrike Falcon 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."Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The stability is very good."
"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."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"There's almost no maintenance required. It's very low if there's any at all."
"The detection is very effective."
"It's very easy to set up."
"We haven't had any infections or down time."
"The most valuable feature of CrowdStrike Falcon for me is its unified sensor, applicable across all models."
"I like the feature called RTC, the remote time connector."
"CrowdStrike Falcon's most valuable features are the lightweight agent which has absolutely zero performance issues. There is no performance deterioration on the laptop on the network. It is a signature-less antivirus and anti-malware solution, it doesn't depend on signatures which better protects the systems."
"All the features are beneficial."
"Blocking browser navigation is a feature of the solution with which we have experienced success."
"What we're using the most and what we found valuable in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response are Web Control, Advanced Threat Protection, and Threat Prevention features."
"If there is any malicious behavior in the workstation or server, the tool stops or isolates it automatically and generates alerts."
"The product's initial setup phase was very straightforward since you just need to install it, and it works."
"This is a stable product."
"The biggest strength of the solution is that it's an integrated product that includes EDR and antivirus."
"The product is user-friendly."
"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."
"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'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."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"The solution is not stable."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Detections could be improved."
"The current database schema presents challenges and has potential for improvement."
"Some of Falcon's features are a bit pricey."
"The malware analysis could be improved, as that's what we use the solution for the most and that change would make it a better EDR tool."
"Sometimes CrowdStrike changes the GUI, and they need to be better at informing us and providing guidance concerning that."
"CrowdStrike Falcon could improve the logs by making them free to the API."
"I would like to see equal support across all versions. Aside from that, I would say most of the features are there."
"There is room for improvement in managing multiple customer IDs."
"It is cloud-based, and this does make some weary of the data being held on the cloud. Privacy requirements must be taken into account."
"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."
"For Spanish users, it is necessary to have a knowledge base specifically designed for them, which is currently not available."
"The graphical view for nodes must be increased."
"The technical support must be improved."
"The endpoints and utilization are too high, which impacts the production activity."
"The alert feature of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response needs improvement because for you to get the alerts, you have to log on to the portal. What my company needs is a tool that sends you alerts. For example, if it detects a threat on your machine, it should send you an alert. My company gets the alerts instead from the antivirus software rather than the EDR. If you want to see the alerts on McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, you have to connect to the system manually. Another area for improvement in the tool is the reporting. My company needs weekly and monthly reports about the alerts, but you can't extract reports from McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, so a decision was made to move to another EDR solution, particularly Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, next month. My company tested Microsoft Defender for Endpoint via a POC for one to three months. The resource usage of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is also an area for improvement because it consumes a lot of memory. For example, during the on-demand scan, you can't work because of the high CPU usage. You need to schedule the scans. McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response has a lot of modules, but my company doesn't use all modules."
"Some modules that are doing machine learning and artificial intelligence are blocking our processes."
"The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
CrowdStrike Falcon is ranked 3rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 105 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews. CrowdStrike Falcon is rated 8.8, while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of CrowdStrike Falcon writes "Easy to set up with good behavior-based analysis but needs a single-click recovery option". 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". CrowdStrike Falcon is most compared with Microsoft Defender XDR, Darktrace, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trend Micro Deep Security and VMware Carbon Black Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Trend Vision One. See our CrowdStrike Falcon 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.
