We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiClient and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"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."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"The most valuable feature is that it's easy to deploy. Deployment, configuration, and troubleshooting are very easy."
"It is very simple to use. I've used some of the others in the past, such as Cisco AnyConnect, which was a nightmare. I've used a couple of others, but FortiClient is very simple to use."
"FortiClient is very easy, useful, and practical."
"It supports securely connections for VPN users from outside our environment during the lockdown."
"The solution is easy to configure and manage."
"The configuration is the most valuable feature."
"EMS central reporting with fabric connectivity to FortiGate and FortiAnalyser is great and has seamless integration which makes managing 3000 devices a breeze."
"The connection speed is fast. I can connect quickly at any time, and there are never any interruptions to the FortiClient connection. I could easily code into the client's server with that connection, with no lag."
"I found the initial setup to be easy."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"It's very stable and reliable."
"It is easy to use, flexible, and stable. Because it is a cloud-based solution and it integrates all endpoints of the cloud, we can do an IOC-based search. It can search the entire enterprise and tell us the endpoints that are possibly compromised."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its simplicity."
"The independent modules are very good."
"Provides protection against threats."
"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."
"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."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"Detections could be improved."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"It takes too long to install."
"They have an EDR feature for end protection detection and response, and this is actually with an add-on subscription, which is charged separately. What I would like to see is this included with the base cost."
"The filtering process could be improved."
"The connectivity could be improved."
"Its stability can be improved. It is not as reliable as I would like it to be. There are times when things don't work quite right. Our biggest pain point is not related to Fortinet FortiClient and the whole scheme of things. It is related to one of the additional services called FortiGuard. They are the arm that does all of the updates to definitions, keeps all the signatures updated, and responds to new threats and whatnot. What we have found is that they react quickly, but sometimes their solutions aren't compatible with all of the components of the Fortinet security suite, specifically around FortiSandbox."
"More integration would be beneficial."
"FortiClient's encryption key could be stronger so that it's not broken too easily."
"It would be extremely useful to have an automatic updating feature."
"Upgrading to new versions isn't easy and it can take a long time. Also, other solutions' tamper protection features are better than FireEye's. Clients should have access to our local information, but they shouldn't change settings on the system itself."
"The solution lacks device control."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing. The price should be improved, it's high."
"The initial setup can be a bit complicated for those unfamiliar with the product."
"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."
"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 email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release."
"The complexity of advanced modules can be improved."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 16th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 85 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 48 reviews. Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiClient writes "Easy to set up and user-friendly with good support ". 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". Fortinet FortiClient is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and Ivanti Connect Secure, 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 Darktrace. See our Fortinet FortiClient vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.