No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator vs NetWitness NDR comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 2024

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

Torq
Sponsored
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (1st), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st)
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
16th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NetWitness NDR
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
23rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (48th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (33rd), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (56th), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (19th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (38th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Torq is 3.5%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is 1.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetWitness NDR is 1.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Torq3.5%
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator1.8%
NetWitness NDR1.8%
Other92.9%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

AD
Solutions Architect at ProArch
Automation has streamlined multi-tenant SOC workflows and improves alert handling efficiency
Although the reporting within Torq is not that great, we did ask for many features regarding reporting in Torq, but due to some platform constraints, they could not make the whole dataset available for us to be used in reporting. Except for that, we used some basic reporting. When I used Torq, it was indeed in the early stages of AI capabilities. Only a few customers were allowed to use it, and we were among them. It functioned well as long as we summarized the data properly. If you input garbage, you would get garbage out. Thus, we had to do significant fine-tuning regarding what data context we provided to the AI orchestrator to get meaningful results. In terms of Torq's unified platform approach to AI SOC automation and case management compared to managing multiple point solutions across my security stack, I find it case-centric. The unified view in case management is good since it provides clarity, although there are limitations regarding how many items in case management can be modified at once. Bulk operations are very limited, potentially due to their back-end database or data retrieval processes that can be improved. Regarding improvements for Torq, when we were onboarded, there were aspects we were uncertain about, such as the number of cases that could be generated, what data we could bring in, how many clients we could onboard, and similar concerns. Initially, we also lacked clarity about the number of playbooks or workflows we could build. Different triggers like system triggers, case-based triggers, and others can be employed without restrictions, but when it comes to on-demand and scheduled jobs, there is a limitation based on the subscription and pricing tier that notably caps the number of workflows we can create. No bulk editing across cases was one issue, along with limited filtering related to single grouping constraints. Additionally, the out-of-the-box case templates provided require substantial modifications before they become usable. There is also a feature in the cases for notes that cannot be searched. They are only visible through the UI, which is another area for improvement. The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially. I am not sure if new customers are made aware of this. It seems that workflows revolving around cases hinder functionality outside of case management, as we have many use cases needing on-demand triggers and schedules for functions like reporting or polling devices. Creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers. While they facilitate optimization and scaling, the support received tends to be very basic. Improvements can be made in that area as well.
Binu Haneef - PeerSpot reviewer
System Administrator at Sky News Arabia
Comprehensive security management enabled through efficient integration and automation
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator helps automate routine security tasks. We created customized automation. For example, when we did not have an EDR or XDR solution, we created tasks exclusively for detection and response automation and automatic segregation of infected PCs. The ability to customize the dashboard in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator helps us significantly. The main feature is automation for auto-segmentation and segregation. As we are in an AI era, McAfee can focus on AI tools. Instead of putting manual effort into each security-related task, it can implement more advanced automation using AI. This enhancement could improve cybersecurity significantly. Regarding the reporting area in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, we are satisfied with what we currently have. Our cybersecurity team needs customized reports beyond the default ones. We have more than 20 separate reports for identifying threats, managing, and understanding the security posture of our company and assets.
reviewer1799727 - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager, IT Security Operations at a non-profit with 11-50 employees
Reliable and good support but can be expensive
I have no real complaints about the solution. Threat detection could be better. They need to enhance their threat intelligence feeds. We would like to have more IOCs or more trade intelligence to not only rely on the intelligence of the engineer in charge but to have some threat intelligence and some seeds of IOCs and to have the host have some artificial intelligence to reduce the number of false positives. I don't see this solution being very scalable. The solution is pricey.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes."
"What I liked the most about Torq is the actual workflow builder, which is really great because they offer a lot of features and convenience features that are useful for any automation engineer."
"Torq's unified platform approach to AI, SOAR, automation, and case management is superior compared to my experience managing multiple point solutions."
"Since we started working with Torq, I am handling much fewer alerts, it is becoming really easy for me to handle an alert, I have all the information that I need, I do not need to connect to different vendors to receive this information, and the main thing I got from Torq is time, which now helps me to build another automated system and learn."
"If I review about 100 vendors that I might work with, Torq is definitely in the top five that gave me personally investment back, just because every bit of effort I put into Torq eventually became a workflow that gave it back to me."
"Once I started to use the system and I saw the potential, it changed all of our work in IT."
"Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq."
"It is a highly scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"This is a solution I recommend very much."
"The central manager policy is valuable, meaning we have almost all client modules in one solution, which is great."
"I really like the auditing component because it really looks at exactly what has happened on the network."
"There is no other product out there with the control and overall security components that can do what ePO can."
"I really like the DLP feature because it gives IT clarity, it doesn't have database issues, and it hasn't crashed or given us problems in the two years we've been using it."
"If you set it up right, it can really manage a very complex environment which require fine tuning where there are a lot of exceptions. That's what it caters to. It can just do those specifics in those exceptional situations, which is good."
"What I like the most is the ability to manage centrally, to manage the various devices, the platform, and the endpoint, all from one console."
"It is stable. We have been using it for some time, without any issues."
"NetWitness Endpoint has enabled us to detect attacks that bypass the first stage of cybersecurity, like zero-day and advanced attacks."
"We've contacted technical support several times. They've been very good. They have been able to help us resolve our issues."
"We use it for IT security purposes; this is our central log management solution, so we incorporate all of our servers and PCs into this software and can monitor the logs from there."
"The detection rate and tracking features including historical tracking, tracking of the fires on the desk, and tracking of the file last monitored are all quite valuable for us."
"NetWitness Endpoint's most valuable features are its interoperability across many different operating systems and the ease of pivoting from network to endpoint via a single console."
"One of the most valuable features is the Orchestrator."
"Ability to isolate the machine when there are malicious files."
 

Cons

"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."
"I wish Torq's AI assistant for building templated workflows from scratch worked better; when you start with a blank slate, asking AI to help you build or template the workflow out does not go well."
"Regarding the pricing of Torq, I would say it is expensive."
"Additionally, the documentation for Torq is not very clear. Most of the information is presented in videos, which are not ideal for reading; there are mostly paragraphs and other text-based content."
"Torq can be improved by adding some more features, such as adding more automation and providing a no-code option so I don't have to code for everything."
"The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially, and creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers."
"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true."
"The areas of concern where improvements are needed are related to the product's assignment policy and tag assignment, where users can assign the policies with the help of tags and sort out the systems."
"The impact of the agent on the endpoint's performance - the resources it takes. Additionally, the difficulties we experience with inheriting and breaking inheritance on the organization's structure breakdown for policy inheritance and then for rules inheritance. We are actually struggling with this."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator should improve its integration with other tools."
"There needs to be support for Mac computers. Currently, McAfee does not work on iOS."
"The solution is difficult to tune to avoid false positives."
"Sometimes agents hang. We have to reinstall the agents."
"The detection aspect should be improved so that signatures are updated more quickly."
"The fact that it uses MSSQL, and cannot be deployed on anything other than Windows, can be a problem."
"We would like to see the hunting and investigation features of this solution improved, in order to provide better visibility of issues."
"When analyzing something, you have to click several times. It requires a lot of effort to find something."
"Its price could be improved. It is an expensive product. Its training is also too expensive. It would be great if they can have a better pricing scheme for the training."
"The solution doesn't have a reporting engine which would be helpful."
"I don't see this solution being very scalable."
"The initial setup requires a high level of skill, then the setup is good and smooth."
"I would like to see Security Orchestration and Response Automation (SOAR) integration."
"The solution lacks a reporting engine."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a three out of ten."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is not an expensive solution."
"$The price of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is expensive, it is approximately $6,000 to $9,000 per license annually."
"There is a license required to use this solution. If we use the additional components, such as DLP encryption, there is an additional cost. However, it is similar to a separate product altogether. If you want to use that or not, it is optional, but when you use it, it will cost you additional pricing."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is a cheaply priced product, meaning it is not expensive since McAfee provides a free version of ePO, which includes phone support as well."
"It's an expensive solution"
"Compared to other Antivirus products, the cost of this solution is a bit high."
"For large enterprise companies, the price should be alright, but for small businesses, the uptake might be slow because, for these clients, the price doesn't look very attractive."
"It is highly scalable. It can be bought based on your requirements."
"The cost depends on the number of endpoints that you want to monitor, but it is not expensive."
"It is an expensive product."
"With RSA, there is flexibility in choosing the service, products, and the range that meets your requirement, as well as they are flexible in terms of pricing."
"NetWitness Endpoint is less costly than its competitors, but it offers fewer features."
"We are on a three-year contract to use RSA NetWitness Network."
"They can easily adjust if you have the requirements which are required. If you have a budget cut or a budget constraint, they can bend."
"I do not have any opinion on the pricing or licensing of the product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
912,517 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Construction Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
14%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise11
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise19
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise6
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?
There are some bugs in Torq, of course. They can be present in data transformation, some UI debugging, and other area...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
My main use case for Torq is the automation of cyber security processes through a SOAR platform and APIs. A main exam...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
Regarding someone thinking about using Torq, I recommend looking into their provided academy to start working with th...
Which is better - Mcafee's MVision ePO or ePolicy Orchestrator?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Mcafee's MVision ePO or ePolicy Orchestrator network secur...
What needs improvement with McAfee MVISION ePO?
There is a question regarding suggestions for additional tools or functions for McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, and whet...
What is your primary use case for McAfee MVISION ePO?
The question pertains to describing the use case and process for which people utilize McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
McAfee ePO, ePolicy Orchestrator, Intel Security ePolicy Orchestrator, McAfee MVISION ePO
RSA ECAT, NetWitness Network
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Brelje & Race, Cognizant, Sutherland Global Services, Eagle Rock Energy, Arab National Bank, Bank Central Asia, Kleberg Bank, Leading Mexican Bank, SF Police Credit Union, Macquarie Telecom, Seagate Technology, Blackburn & Darwen Council, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, IRCEP, Major U.S. State Government, State of Alaska, State of Colorado, Cemex, Deutsche Edelstahlwerke
ADP, Ameritas, Partners Healthcare
Find out what your peers are saying about McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator vs. NetWitness NDR and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
912,517 professionals have used our research since 2012.