We performed a comparison between Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response 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 product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The security is good."
"IPS and the user interface are good features."
"I like Symantec EDR's device control and USB security features."
"The solution can scale well."
"The solution has great blocking features."
"The most valuable features of this product include network isolation for machines and the ability to work with a consistent and defined set of virtual machines."
"The pricing is good."
"It is mostly used for malware detection and antivirus purposes."
"MVISION Endpoint is so much easier and so much simpler for the lay security personnel to handle."
"Trellix Endpoint Security has a full suite of DLP."
"The seamless deployment is very valuable."
"The stability has been great."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint is stable."
"The agents are easy to deploy."
"FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front."
"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."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The solution is not stable."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"A significant deterioration in customer support."
"Technical support is not as good as we expect, and resolving problems should be more timely."
"In the future, it would be nice to have playbooks in the tool, to allow for some of the common activities to be automated. For example, some of the scannings of the malware can be too manual for a specific device. Additionally, a vulnerability manager would be beneficial."
"While they are quite dynamic, they need to ensure they are detecting threats faster in the future to keep people safer."
"I think we have experienced some technical issues because the company focuses mainly on bigger clients. Also, sometimes the solution fails to detect zero-day attacks, so that feature needs some enhancement because it is lacking compared to other solutions."
"The interface has many issues."
"The GUI could be better."
"That's why I wouldn't recommend it for other systems. It works only with SAP clients. That's why I'm giving it a six. It would get higher if it worked on all networks without the help of SAP."
"The customization capabilities of the solution are an area where it lacks, so it would be great if our company could customize the solution to meet the demands of our customers."
"The initial setup can be a bit complicated for those unfamiliar with the product."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
"The product could be flexible and offer better pricing."
"The performance could be better. I noticed that it slows down a bit."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
"The central monitoring dashboard needs improvement."
"Performance is a problematic area in the solution needing improvement."
More Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is ranked 25th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 28 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 47 reviews. Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is rated 7.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response writes "A highly stable and affordable solution for detecting and preventing security threats". 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". Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trend Vision One, Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert, Bitdefender GravityZone EDR and CrowdStrike Falcon, 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 Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response 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.