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

Lumu 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

Lumu
Ranking in Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
18th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) (14th), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (6th)
Trellix Endpoint Security P...
Ranking in Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
158
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (9th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Extended Detection and Response (XDR) category, the mindshare of Lumu is 1.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Endpoint Security Platform is 3.6%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Extended Detection and Response (XDR)
 

Featured Reviews

Juan Solano - PeerSpot reviewer
Protects against threats and handles it in time with moderate pricing
Mostly, Lumu is an automatic tool. We'll deploy on firewalls and DNS servers. Lumu detects every attack on our network. The other day, we had CLC, the command controller, and the tool reacted automatically. It detected the attack and immediately blocked it without intervention from my team. The improvement is in the security process, as it's now entirely automated. We no longer require a technician or engineer to monitor our network 24/7. Lumu updates with AI and global threat intelligence, which greatly assists us. Since our workload is lighter, Lumu handles all of our tasks. We're using FortiGate for the firewall and Kaspersky for endpoints. If you are going to Lumu, you need another solution for the endpoint. You need to integrate with other tools like firewalls or another antivirus. I recommend the solution based on the price, usability, and service offered by the solution. Overall, I rate the solution a nine 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 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

"Lumu protects against threats immediately and handles them in time."
"You can access external links, playbooks, MITRE Matrix, and a lot of information."
"Most of it is automated, so I do not have to watch it to get alerts."
"The automated response to incidents works effectively out of the box, and the number of interfaces and platforms it can work with is impressive."
"It's been helpful for overall extended network visibility."
"The tool's support team helps partners resolve any problems with the product."
"I like Lumu's simple user interface. When we deployed it, we got full access, allowing us to identify IP addresses on the network and connect machine names to users. It helped us identify and block threats via the firewall. I also appreciate the chat support and ticket closure process. We're currently reviewing network detection solutions, and my recommendations include Lumu, Sentinel, and a few others. Regarding functionality and user-friendliness, I would recommend Lumu over the others."
"The context provided by the tool is very complete, it includes the miter matrix, playbooks, links, hashes, and much more."
"McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection is stable. We don't have any bugs being reported."
"What I like most about McAfee MVISION Endpoint is that it's very user-friendly. You do need some knowledge on how to navigate the portal, but as soon as you've gained that knowledge, navigation will no longer be an issue. I have no complaints about McAfee MVISION Endpoint. For me, the product is perfect the way it is. It's great right now, and it's doing good as it is."
"The product helps us by contacting us if there are any virus attacks on our system."
"The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities."
"It is a stable solution...The solution's technical support is good."
"The installation is pretty straightforward."
"When Intel acquired McAfee they worked on the protocol so that all vendors can work on the same platform. It's a very big improvement in McAfee. All McAfee products talk to each other. Other vendor's products can join this platform as well so it makes it more powerful on the enterprise side for McAfee."
"The product is quite user-friendly."
 

Cons

"The integration with different vendors and endpoints could be improved."
"Having a larger support network would be beneficial. Nobody I know has heard of Lumu, so they are in the same space as Darktrace or CrowdStrike, but people give blank stares."
"It would be good if we could access the physical logs."
"I am happy with the current features. However, one important one is to improve the reports."
"The free version is minimal compared to the full version."
"The reports need improvement."
"Nothing so far needs to be improved."
"Lumu's ability to discover threats is an area of concern where improvements are needed."
"Although they have increased the complexity, it has affected the scanning speed."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing. The price should be improved, it's high."
"I hope the solution can be used in cloud systems going forward."
"We don't like the solution since it requires much memory consumption and consumes much CPU resources."
"The platform needs improvement in terms of handling heavy databases."
"They could provide better integration capabilities for the product with other services."
"What needs improvement in Trellix Endpoint Security is the reduction of resource consumption by the scanning feature. There should be daily signature updates for protection."
"The resolution time should be faster."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared to Lumu, other solutions are more expensive. SentinelOne was a bit cheaper, and another provider's price structure is unclear, but Lumu fit our budget nicely. SentinelOne's cost depends on the number of devices, and it might be similar to Lumu's, depending on deployment."
"It is the cheapest solution we found."
"The tool is available at a good price. The tool offers a good and competitive price for customers."
"I rate Trellix Endpoint Security a nine out of ten for pricing."
"McAfee's prices are flexible and can be quite competitive, although there are other solutions that are even more so."
"The pricing is great and licensing fees are billed on a yearly basis."
"Its price is reasonable, but it could be made free."
"The pricing is mid-ranged and quite reasonable compared to other similar products."
"Trellix may cost around $46 to $47 for a single license without an EDR."
"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."
"Compared to Bitdefender, Trellix Endpoint Security is more expensive, but considering it comes with DLP, the solution's price is fine."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Extended Detection and Response (XDR) solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Insurance Company
8%
Government
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Lumu?
Lumu protects against threats immediately and handles them in time.
What needs improvement with Lumu?
There is always room for improvement. I am not giving it a perfect score because I am sure there is something that could be enhanced.Having some sort of certification or training, along with more p...
What is your primary use case for Lumu?
We use it as our managed SOC instead of contracting with an MSP. It coordinates endpoint and gives us a single pane of glass for our security events.It fulfills the role of a SIEM, serving as our d...
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 Lumu vs. Trellix Endpoint Security Platform and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.