We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Trellix ESM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)."The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"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."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"This is stable and scalable."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The stability is very good."
"I haven't had any issues with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"For me, the technical support is good."
"What I like most about Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is the support because the support is good. The solution is also easy to use, and it has a dashboard. Everything is good, and there's no problem with it."
"They do a very good job of providing multi-stage visualizations of malicious operations that immediately show all attack details across all devices and users. Since it is MalOp-centric model, you can see if there has been a similar operation across multiple machines. If it is the same thing appearing on multiple machines, you see all the machines and users affected in one screen."
"Immediately we can pick up the computers in the network if any malicious operation that is triggered."
"The initial setup process is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation rules."
"The solution's technical support is great."
"The solution is 100% stable. We really have had a great time working with it. It hasn't let us down."
"McAfee as a whole is a good solution."
"I rate the tool's deployment an eight out of ten. The deployment is completed in two days."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to correlate different events from different platforms that we feed into it."
"It enables us to detect malicious threats, issues, or vulnerabilities in our network."
"The most valuable features of McAfee ESM are intrusion detection, malware protection, and the device controller."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"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."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"Reporting could be a bit more granular so that we had the ability to check regions and countries. I just noticed that, for instance, if I look at our servers, it's either "contained" or it's "not contained". I don't have the option, for instance, to look at countries. It only allows me to look at users as one big group."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"The deployment on individual endpoints is more geared toward larger organizations. It might prove to be a bit too complicated for a smaller organization. You need to know what you're doing when you're deploying the sensor."
"Compared to our previous endpoint, we have a lot more false positives and a lot more duplication of alerts. So we're chasing more alerts."
"It initially took some time to deploy."
"Ad hoc higher-level reporting to senior management can be improved or can be implemented. That's definitely an area of improvement that they need to focus on."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"Update to user interface from version 9 is cosmetic in some aspects, and after a few clicks you are back on the old interface."
"Cloud integration has room for improvement because they're not full-fledged to integrate with the cloud solutions that come. They use different integration platforms to bring in data, and that needs to be improved."
"The product’s alert response feature needs improvement. It could be more flexible and secure."
"It is not a very advanced solution, and it is for very generic use cases. It cannot cope with the advanced requirements that we're going to have. For example, for multiple authentication failures, it is still based on Windows events for detecting multiple login failures, whereas other companies are going beyond and working on implementing two-factor authentication. It is time to correlate the two-factor authentication results with authentification failures, which is not happening with McAfee ESM. The performance of the tool should be improved because it is very slow. The data display on the console is very slow in McAfee ESM. Its data storage is still old-fashioned, and it should be improved and upgraded to the latest versions. They have to come up with some new ideas to match what other leaders in the same domain are doing. For example, in Splunk, when you search for information for the last 60 days or five months, it quickly shows the information, but that is not the case with McAfee. The results should be quicker and faster on the console. They should integrate some additional features such as User Behavior Analytics (UBA) and automation. The threat intelligence part should also be improved on McAfee."
"The support from McAfee ESM could improve. They could improve the speed."
"Tech support is required each time there is a system update of the solution."
"I would like to see improvements to the user interface."
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 37th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 19 reviews while Trellix ESM is ranked 18th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 34 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Trellix ESM is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response writes "It has helped us become more knowledgeable about our environment and aware of threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix ESM writes "Provides visibility of all the traffic within the company infrastructure". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Darktrace and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Trellix ESM is most compared with ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM), IBM Security QRadar, Splunk Enterprise Security, LogRhythm SIEM and SQRRL.
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.