Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Guardz vs Trellix Endpoint Security Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 9, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Guardz
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
46th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Email Security (33rd), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (32nd), Ransomware Protection (14th)
Trellix Endpoint Security P...
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
158
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (9th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category, the mindshare of Guardz is 0.2%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Endpoint Security Platform is 4.3%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
 

Featured Reviews

Steve Bowtell - PeerSpot reviewer
Exceptionally easy to integrate and covers a multitude of cybersecurity issues
The solution's interface appears very simple, but it is very complicated in the back end. So, it removes all the complications that an MSP or an MSSP would normally have. The solution's maintenance depends on whether you run it like an MDR platform where you provide the detection response part for the customer. That would normally be the MSP part. Sometimes, you have customers who are just happy to get an email and tell them what the problem is, and they fix it themselves. If there's no in-house expertise, the MSP or the MSSP can do the maintenance. If there's in-house expertise, it's just a matter of advising them. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
Abdullah Al Hadi - PeerSpot reviewer
Customization capabilities allow clients to autonomously deploy policies
There are a few areas where Trellix Endpoint Security ( /categories/endpoint-protection-platform-epp ) can improve. Firstly, the high CPU utilization when agents are installed can negatively impact client systems. Another issue is with end-users outside the network, where the agent handler sometimes fails to deploy the product properly. Improvements are needed in forensic analytics to detect specific vulnerabilities. It would also help if detection specifics were identified more quickly and the problem-solving process accelerated, especially to meet larger clients' expectations.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution is exceptionally easy to integrate and covers a multitude of cybersecurity issues."
"The user behavioral analysis feature is great."
"The solution is a reliable and mature product. Its reporting function is robust, and the user interface is easy to use. End users can create customized reports with detailed reporting for any computer and export them in PDF or other formats. This reporting capability is very robust."
"I have not received any complaints about the performance."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"There is a new feature where you can set thresholds for all the CPU consumption allowing for no consumption on the servers when the scans happen. It is a separate plugin or addon, and if we have it on all the virtual machines it automatically checks the resources, and based on that, it will schedule the scans. That is something that I have not seen in other antivirus solutions, such as Symantec."
"The manageability of the product itself is its most valuable aspect. You have the underlying EPO, and on top of it, you can deploy the various components as you require. This is unlike other solutions like Symantec where you have to deploy everything or nothing. With this solution, you can choose to only deploy antivirus or only deploy a firewall, or only something else. I choose the components and that deployment is done through EPO. It makes manageability very flexible."
"The extendability is great."
"The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP."
 

Cons

"The solution's security awareness training and phishing are very United States-focused and don't work very well in Australia."
"Intrusion detection and intervention seem to be falling behind the competition."
"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 user interface could be improved by making it more user-friendly. There are multiple solutions and there is no clear line differentiating all of them. There is a centralized console where we manage everything but most of the administrators feel a little confused when it comes to managing multiple products from a single place."
"The main area for improvement is the integration with Microsoft Windows Hello, which includes Face ID or fingerprint-based authentication. Currently, they don't support either, so users have to type in the username and password."
"They can improve its resource consumption, such as memory, and maybe provide better or smaller updates. It always takes a lot of resources, but it has been getting better. I have been using McAfee products for the last 20 years or so, and I know it is getting better."
"When it runs in the background of the endpoint, the devices get slowed down for some applications."
"The platform needs improvement in terms of handling heavy databases."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve by an overall simplification of the solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I like Guardz's pricing model because it's very cost-effective and has no long-term commitments."
"The pricing is comparable to other solutions on the market."
"Pricing is fair."
"Pricing for McAfee MVISION Endpoint is not very good, and I would rate its cost three out of five, though I won't be able to mention how much its actual price is."
"It is not that expensive. There is no additional cost. We got the entire bundle together."
"The pricing is great and licensing fees are billed on a yearly basis."
"We pay for the license on an annual basis."
"The current pricing is much better than before because they now offer product-related promotions along with some changes in product licensing. The new pricing model is better than before."
"Its price is very high. It is higher than its competitors, and it should be less."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Security Firm
8%
Educational Organization
14%
Government
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Guardz?
The solution is exceptionally easy to integrate and covers a multitude of cybersecurity issues.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Guardz?
I like Guardz's pricing model because it's very cost-effective and has no long-term commitments. You could run it monthly if you want to and then leave.
What needs improvement with Guardz?
The solution's security awareness training and phishing are very United States-focused and don't work very well in Australia.
How does McAfee Endpoint Security compare with MVISION?
The flexible manageability of McAfee Endpoint Security is one of our favorite aspects of this solution. You can deploy various components as desired with McAfee Endpoint Security, whereas many othe...
How does Crowdstrike Falcon compare with FireEye Endpoint Security?
The Crowdstrike Falcon program has a simple to use user interface, making it both an easy to use as well as an effective program. Its graphical design is such that it makes an extremely useful too...
What do you like most about McAfee Endpoint Security?
It provides a robust defense against cybersecurity threats while offering user-friendly features like notifications and approval prompts.
 

Also Known As

No data available
McAfee Endpoint Security, McAfee Endpoint Protection, Intel Security Total Protection for Endpoint, McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS)
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
inHouseIT, Seagate Technology
Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Microsoft and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR). Updated: January 2025.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.