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

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator vs NetWitness NDR comparison

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
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
15
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
43
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) (49th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (34th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (59th), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (19th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (41st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Torq is 3.8%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is 1.7%, 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 (%)
Torq3.8%
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator1.7%
NetWitness NDR1.8%
Other92.7%
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.
PankajKumar24 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Manager at Gigabit Technologies Pvt Ltd
Centralized management console enhances deployment and threat detection processes
Some drawbacks include difficulty in supporting improvements because we don't get proper response from Trellix support, so there is a need to improve the support.In using McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator as an on-premise solution, we face challenges such as login issues and stopped services, where Trellix does not provide prompt responses. They request time for logs for analysis, and after about 10 to 11 days, this ticket was finally closed.
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

"Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes."
"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."
"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"Once I started to use the system and I saw the potential, it changed all of our work in IT."
"We have seen fewer failures of automations from the time Torq came into the picture, we've had a more streamlined process of handling incidents, and at the same time, we've learned to embed the AI into our incident types, and that is how it has helped us in the automation."
"Torq's unified platform approach to AI, SOAR, automation, and case management is superior compared to my experience managing multiple point solutions."
"Under one SOC tool in Torq, analysts get to know everything within the context of an alert or incident they are working on, and this ability to view the whole picture within Torq is one of the major breakthroughs and best offerings of Torq."
"Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq."
"You have to have some experience, however, it's pretty simple to understand."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the antivirus and the DLP."
"The central manager policy is valuable, meaning we have almost all client modules in one solution, which is great."
"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."
"We previously used Symantec, and if we compare it to McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is better."
"The automation alert for the ticketing tool is one of the vital features"
"The central management console is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"It is a very manageable and effective orchestrator to manage all resources under one umbrella."
"The interface of this solution is very flexible and easy to use."
"RSA NetWitness Endpoint has helped our organization from its many advantages and because it provides overall visibility of all of our endpoints within the enterprise network."
"It's a scalable solution. We have around five to eight customers using RSA NetWitness Endpoint, and we hope to increase the number of users."
"The most valuable feature of RSA NetWitness Network is the single unified dashboard from which you can manage all the different products of RSA. Additionally, the integration with native applications is good."
"RSA NetWitness does market analysis in a more granular form. It gives you full visibility."
"It is very easy to use, and its usability is great."
"This solution allows us to locate the malware in real-time."
"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."
 

Cons

"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"It was able to capture data but was unable to differentiate between the agent hostname we are using and the hostname that resides on the back end of the Internet."
"Regarding the pricing of Torq, I would say it is expensive."
"If Torq could enhance its AI features, it would benefit customers significantly by making the platform even more user-friendly."
"Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true."
"Regarding stability, I have noticed some lagging, crashing, and downtime, which is one of my largest gripes."
"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."
"Torq can probably use more ML and look at what can be closed and what cannot be closed in terms of data classification."
"A lot of the components of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, such as Sandboxing, DX, and ATP are not stable."
"Features such as full drive encryption are lacking in the cloud version."
"The fact that it uses MSSQL, and cannot be deployed on anything other than Windows, can be a problem."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator needs to upgrade its technology since the solution's EDR function is not good compared to other vendors in the market."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator needs to upgrade the technology; it's like their area function is not quite as good as compared to other market vendors."
"The issues with the integration capabilities of the product, specifically the ones that are deployed on an on-premises model, need to be improved."
"The way that ePolicy launches the updates is very slow. It would be great if that was faster."
"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."
"The solution lacks a reporting engine."
"One of the drawbacks of using this product is that when you deploy, you have to create MSI files."
"The solution is modular, for example you can buy the RSA ePack, which you buy as a module is not part of the conduit solution. They could include it and have it as an all-in-one solution."
"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."
"NetWitness Endpoint's blocking feature does not work properly - if there's a malicious process, it's not possible to kill it via a custom rule unless and until it's flagged as malicious."
"I don't see this solution being very scalable."
"RSA NetWitness Endpoint is a scalable solution. However, the problem which we normally face is in terms of the migration of the solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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's an expensive solution"
"This solution is priced in the mid-range."
"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."
"Compared to other Antivirus products, the cost of this solution is a bit high."
"McAfee tries to package different things into different products, then sell them as different products with different licenses. They just split everything up into multiple things. That's just their sales pitch and how they do it."
"$The price of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is expensive, it is approximately $6,000 to $9,000 per license annually."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is not an expensive solution."
"I do not have any opinion on the pricing or licensing of the product."
"It is highly scalable. It can be bought based on your requirements."
"We are on a three-year contract to use RSA NetWitness Network."
"The price of the solution depends on the environment. If the environment is large then it will cost more. However, the larger the environment with more endpoints, you will receive an increased discount. If the environment is very small, then you might think it is expensive. It is always better to buy in bulk to receive a discount. The minimum number of assets is usually 500, with discounts on 1000 and 2000."
"The cost depends on the number of endpoints that you want to monitor, but it is not expensive."
"The pricing is not very economical. It is a quite costly product for India. One thing is that when you purchase it, you have to purchase a module separately."
"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."
"NetWitness Endpoint is less costly than its competitors, but it offers fewer features."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
906,852 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise8
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?
The only thing is more out-of-the-box integrations. Torq already has a lot of supported integrations and adding new o...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
For Torq, first of all, it's a hyperautomation and AI assistant usage. Our EDR SentinelOne is integrated in Torq and ...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
I think I have told everything about Torq that I can share at this stage, but I am still in the process of learning t...
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: June 2026.
906,852 professionals have used our research since 2012.