We performed a comparison between Fidelis Elevate 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."The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The stability is very good."
"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."
"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."
"It has a rating system now so you can rate things up or down, depending on your environment. This means alerting can be customized, yet still pick up anomalies."
"Compared to similar solutions, it's quite scalable. You just need to add more storage to scale-up."
"It has also improved our hunt ability with quick search tools, to zone in on malware or other anomalies. It is able to link items to incidents from other consoles, and works natively with the SIEM."
"What I like the most about this solution is the complexity. It covers a lot of areas, unlike other solutions."
"It ensures the stability of network behavior across various aspects of our network and offers responsive capabilities to address incidents promptly"
"Reporting is great, it is easy to do a quick search through 45 days of data for something of interest."
"After rack and stack, devices were up and running base configurations within two hours. As with any IPS, tuning is required to stop false positives. This is no different, but the ease of use of the interface allowed my team to start making adjustments within a few hours."
"There are many valuable features. The NDR gives very good network visibility, and the endpoint module has a great feature called "Live Connect" for remote connections. They also have "Tasks" that can be run on endpoints to gather specific information or retrieve logs."
"Technical support is excellent."
"The most valuable network security feature is the network sandbox solution. This sandbox feature works on traffic flow."
"The installation phase of the solution was very easy."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"I found the initial setup to be easy."
"MVISION offers decent protection."
"It's good that it periodically scans all my drives. I can stay up to date with the status of my drivers and update them if needed."
"Provides good mobile device protection."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"Detections could be improved."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"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."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"There is room for improvement in email security. It's a security issue. If you're aiming for XDR, covering the entire threat landscape is crucial."
"The reports in the endpoint area of Elevate can be improved."
"I encounter difficulty removing certain entries in behavior or alerts; likewise, I am unable to add specific calls."
"Configuration, in terms of building the collector and communicating with endpoints, is complex."
"Fidelis Endpoint is an expensive product making it one of its shortcomings that needs improvement."
"We position the solution as an antivirus, but this part of the solution needs improvement. They need to generally enhance the features that they have, rather than adding anything new."
"The interface bug needs to be squashed once and for all. This has been the predominant issue with an otherwise stellar product. It reboots itself unscheduled, about once a month, due to a memory buffer flaw in the interface."
"The central monitoring dashboard needs improvement."
"It has very good integrations. However, its integration with Palo Alto was not good, and they seem to be working on it at the backend. It is not very resource-hungry, but it can be even better in terms of resource utilization. It could be improved in terms of efficiency, memory sizing, and disk consumption by agents."
"The solution needs to work on memory consumption. It is too high."
"From an improvement perspective, I want everything in the solution to be free."
"The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux. We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap."
"The complexity of advanced modules can be improved."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve by an overall simplification of the solution."
"They could also increase or improve the scalability because to my knowledge the biggest bandwidth can only support up to 10 gigs of input."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fidelis Elevate is ranked 41st in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 7 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 48 reviews. Fidelis Elevate is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Fidelis Elevate writes "Advanced threat detection capabilities with comprehensive incident response features providing robust cybersecurity for organizations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "It integrates well with other solutions, but the vendor needs more of a local presence and faster response". Fidelis Elevate is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, VMware Carbon Black Cloud, Darktrace and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, 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 Fidelis Elevate vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors and 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.
