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

Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response vs Trellix Active Response comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
1.0
Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response improves incident response time, reduces breaches, and enhances threat visibility with efficient deployment and accurate detection.
Sentiment score
3.8
Trellix Active Response improved threat detection, reduced incident response times, increased efficiency, and enhanced productivity with an intuitive interface.
While we haven't yet quantified the financial benefits, we recognize that there has been a return on investment, particularly with operational efficiencies provided by the alerts.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.0
Kaspersky's customer support receives mixed reviews; responsive and helpful for some, slow response time and expertise issues for others.
Sentiment score
7.8
Trellix Active Response's customer support is generally positive, but availability and contact speed could improve, rated seven out of ten.
I would rate technical support from Trellix Active Response as a seven because sometimes we face difficulties finding engineers quickly, leading to customer frustration.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
3.2
Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is scalable for large enterprises but may face limitations in resource-constrained environments.
Sentiment score
4.1
Trellix Active Response is scalable, integrates easily, handles large data seamlessly, and maintains performance and security with minimal latency.
The scalability of Active Response is satisfactory.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
4.0
Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is praised for stability and reliability, with efficient license management and minimal unresolved issues.
Sentiment score
4.6
Trellix Active Response is praised for reliability, efficient data handling, quick threat detection, adaptability, and stability with minimal downtime.
 

Room For Improvement

Kaspersky Endpoint Detection faces performance, compatibility, and support issues, with users desiring better security features and integration.
Trellix Active Response needs better resource management, advanced analytics, and improved integrations for efficient monitoring and AI features.
We would like Trellix to optimize the technology for these systems similarly to how it is deployed for normal endpoints.
There is room for improvement in the platform area and security area to make the dashboard visibility clearer and easier for customers to monitor malicious activities occurring in their environment.
 

Setup Cost

Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response offers competitive pricing with mixed opinions, deemed cost-effective despite initial high costs.
Based on our evaluations, Trellix Active Response's pricing was the most feasible from a cost perspective.
 

Valuable Features

Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response provides robust threat management with efficient malware detection, customization, and machine learning-enhanced security.
Trellix Active Response enhances analytics, user insights, and incident handling, excelling in detection and response with holistic EDR benefits.
They notify us immediately of any vulnerabilities on the endpoints, allowing us to deploy a response quickly.
The most valuable feature of Trellix Active Response is that whenever any incident occurs, it allows us to disconnect from that particular network or area and shut down the system using commands.
 

Categories and Ranking

Kaspersky Endpoint Detectio...
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
19th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Trellix Active Response
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
45th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.1
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category, the mindshare of Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response is 1.9%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Active Response is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
 

Featured Reviews

Majid  Ali - PeerSpot reviewer
Security tool provides basic protection but faces challenges in support and feature set
I'm facing challenges because the local support is not up to mark, and its features are not comparable to industry-leading solutions such as CrowdStrike and Trend Micro. Kaspersky needs to improve its local support to become a better product for future releases. The local support is inadequate, and compared to Trend Micro and CrowdStrike, many features are missing in this tool regarding investigation, threat hunting, and threat intelligence. These features are not up to mark in this tool compared to other EDR solutions, and the interface is very unfriendly.
Abdullah Al Hadi - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers comprehensive incident visualization and quick response capabilities but requires clearer dashboard interface
I am an Information Security Engineer at NHQ Distribution Limited and a partner of Trellix. I work with different products in Trellix, including Trellix EDR, SDR, and MDR. Trellix Active Response is the EDR solution from Trellix that has moved from an on-premise solution to a cloud solution. The Trellix MDR solution is helpful for SOC analysis and is integrated with Trellix EDR and SDR capabilities, providing full visibility of threat detection and hunting and detection response correlating with other solutions like endpoint security and encryption. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Trellix Active Response an eight.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Retailer
9%
Government
18%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
University
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response?
Kaspersky EDR offers automated response capabilities, enhancing efficiency by enabling quick investigation and response to potential threats on Android devices.
What needs improvement with Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response?
I'm facing challenges because the local support is not up to mark, and its features are not comparable to industry-leading solutions such as CrowdStrike and Trend Micro. Kaspersky needs to improve ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for McAfee Active Response?
Based on our evaluations, Trellix Active Response's pricing was the most feasible from a cost perspective. I rate the pricing between a six and an eight. It is justified.
What needs improvement with McAfee Active Response?
For Trellix Active Response, there is room for improvement in the platform area and security area to make the dashboard visibility clearer and easier for customers to monitor malicious activities o...
What is your primary use case for McAfee Active Response?
The typical use case for Trellix Active Response is to provide quick incident response, as the product collects and correlates logs with the ePO dashboard, allowing customers to get visibility of t...
 

Also Known As

No data available
McAfee Active Response
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Find out what your peers are saying about Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response vs. Trellix Active Response and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.