We performed a comparison between McAfee MVISION Endpoint vs Trellix Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Of the two solutions, Trellix Endpoint Security is the more popular choice because not only is deployment easy, but it has an appealing set of product features and seems to have more powerful detection capabilities than McAfee MVISION.
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"We like the management of the ePO, and we like the management console."
"It has improved my organization because it helps with visibility, in terms of security. We can see the actual attack and can contain it. The antivirus can detect that."
"It's easy to use and it's very powerful. It offers nice endpoint protection."
"This product has the capability to check a wide range of vulnerabilities and devices."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"Would benefit with the addition of DLP features."
"Tech support is responsive. They're good, the very best."
"The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"The platform’s most valuable features are ease of use, integration, and deployment."
"The setup is not that complex. It takes five to ten minutes to set up."
"The performance is good."
"We have a cloud-based instance, so we can deploy all our configurations through the cloud. That's the beauty of FireEye."
"It is very valuable in finding out unknown malware."
"The stability has been great."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"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."
"The solution is not stable."
"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."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The solution should provide a more easy way to uninstall it on specific stations."
"The solution could use better updates and fewer bugs."
"Sometimes, while installing the ePO, we were getting so many errors and I don't know why it happened."
"I would like to have the ability to have more control over the deployment in the next release. If you have this console in the cloud, you cannot make pilot groups for deploying the agents. We only have the current group. So, as soon as you inject the software, it will go directly into production, which doesn't work for us. We need to build up pilot groups slowly. We already requested to have this feature on the cloud, and we are still waiting."
"Some agents become old and then they don't communicate well any longer."
"Signatures to protect against new attacks."
"I would like to see more integration with third-party products."
"One of the drawbacks is that it is not 100% secure."
"There should be better integration between the ePolicy Orchestrator and FireEye console. The integration of both consoles should be better."
"One suggestion is they should reduce the constant notifications. Whenever I open my laptop, there are too many notifications from McAfee, and it gets annoying."
"Impacts performance of the servers quite negatively."
"Intrusion detection and intervention seem to be falling behind the competition."
"The solution needs to work on memory consumption. It is too high."
"In some cases, the detection part was not accurate enough. We opened a few cases for the vendor to help us with some miscategorized findings on the endpoints. There were some false positive detections, and we had to work with the vendor to get them tested. We even had some incidents that were not detected. It was a black box type of solution for us."
"The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 94 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 46 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". 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". Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trend Micro Deep Security and Cisco Secure Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), Open EDR and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Trellix Endpoint Security 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.
It depends on what you want to achieve. With McAfee ENS you have complete coverage through McAfee solutions, that is, it has an AV engine (threat Protection), you have Advance Threat Protection (ATP), light control over browsers, and a firewall.
With MVISION Endpoint you add being able to manage Microsoft Defender from the MVISION ePO or EPO on-premise console. But the AV engine is Defender, not McAfee. So you depend on the potential and configuration you make of Defender.