We performed a comparison between CylanceOPTICS and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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."It is stable and scalable."
"The stability is very good."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. I would give it a close ten as possible because, like SentinelOne, I've seen incompatibility. Whereas Cylance, I've seen none."
"CylanceOPTICS is easy to use."
"It's pretty unintrusive"
"It automatically blocks the threats, helping us investigate if they harm the environment."
"The solution has a high level of trust in the industry."
"CylanceOPTICS is pretty stable."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to respond to zero-day and unknown threats."
"Cylance is not a signature-based protection solution and instead works proactively using AI and ML models to patrol for malicious behavior."
"The threat scanning is excellent. It uses predictive technology and I can utilize attack data to help us fine-tune our systems and network infrastructure. This protects us against current and future attacks."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"Provides protection against threats."
"The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP."
"The setup is not that complex. It takes five to ten minutes to set up."
"It is very valuable in finding out unknown malware."
"Provides good mobile device protection."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its simplicity."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"Detections could be improved."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"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."
"The solution is not stable."
"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."
"The support needs improvement."
"The reporting is very weak and not very good at all."
"The product's technical support is slow."
"Our customers would like to see more automation with respect to how threats are handled once they have been detected."
"CylanceOPTICS could benefit from more granular control in the timeline-building process. Ideally, users would be able to drill deeper into the analysis rather than have the machine dictate the direction."
"The product's initial setup process could be easy."
"One minor issue that somebody mentioned was that they didn't like their management console."
"The technical support could be improved although it's probably better than you get with a lot of the other traditional antivirus solutions"
"Too many false positives are reported."
"The solution lacks device control."
"It is a very heavy tool, unfortunately."
"I would like to see more automation."
"The performance could be better. I noticed that it slows down a bit."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve by an overall simplification of the solution."
"If you have another endpoint product running on the same machine, you have to fine tune functions from FireEye to avoid performance and user experience issues."
"The product is consolidating its portfolio into one product. It is difficult at the moment."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
CylanceOPTICS is ranked 33rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 10 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 48 reviews. CylanceOPTICS is rated 7.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of CylanceOPTICS writes "Enables the isolation and inoculation of infected machines, offering a practical solution for dealing with threats and preventing their spread within the environment". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". CylanceOPTICS is most compared with 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 CylanceOPTICS vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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.
