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

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator vs ThreatQ comparison

 

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

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
40
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ThreatQ
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
23rd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is 0.5%, down from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatQ is 1.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

DavidJones7 - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers automation alert features with easy integrations and impressive scalability
I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten. There are a few technical challenges with the deployment, but it can easily solved by an experienced professional but not by a beginner user of the tool. The complete implementation and migration to McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator will take around three months. If someone is using a software platform already with implemented use cases in their environment, it might be difficult to implement the same use cases when the customer is migrating to McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator. The conditions and prior alert settings needs to be accurate when migrating to McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, otherwise false positive alerts might get generated.
reviewer2384535 - PeerSpot reviewer
Improves the threat intelligence gathering process, but it is not user-friendly
The tool is not user-friendly. It is not beginner-friendly. It would be very difficult for a beginner to learn the tool. It will take at least two months to get familiar with it. Building the playbook is a little difficult for a beginner. The vendor must simplify the tool and make it user-friendly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of the solution is the central management console, which is used for DLP, endpoint security, drive encryption, and application control."
"McAfee is helping us to clean all of the viruses from the machines, protecting our desktops from the latest threats."
"The valuable feature of the McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is the management of the policies."
"The general endpoint protection is valuable, and it is easy to manage."
"The solution's best part is that it is very easy to manage McAfee Agent."
"It is a scalable solution...I rate its scalability a nine out of ten."
"The central management console is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"We implemented data transfer protection, which allows transfer in one direction only. Users can copy from the PC to the USB but not from the USB to the PC. That way, if someone is carrying a virus on a USB, it will not be transferred to the PC."
"The reporting services are great. With reporting services, if you have customers that just visit a URL you can see the result - including why it's blocked and how and how the URL was first recognized as malicious."
"Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy."
 

Cons

"The solution is difficult to tune to avoid false positives."
"I would like to see McAfee reduce the amount of manual work required."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator support has been helpful. However, sometimes when I raise the case they take a while to answer. For example, the last time I used them it took them two weeks to reply back by email. No one has contacted me back since. They should improve their service."
"The rollout to cover the online resources, such as SharePoint, One Drive, and Office 365 doesn't seem to have a very clear path."
"As for improvements, I think that putting everything on a cloud and one console would be a great idea and would be useful for customers."
"There are some issues we are having with updating our Windows server. So we need to contact support or access our support portal."
"Features such as full drive encryption are lacking in the cloud version."
"Sometimes agents hang. We have to reinstall the agents."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 not an expensive solution."
"It's an expensive solution"
"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 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."
"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."
"$The price of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is expensive, it is approximately $6,000 to $9,000 per license annually."
"This solution is priced in the mid-range."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
10%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Educational Organization
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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 security software was the better fit for us. We decided to go with Mcafee's ePolicy O...
What do you like most about McAfee MVISION ePO?
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator's performance is good.
What do you like most about ThreatQ?
Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy.
What needs improvement with ThreatQ?
The tool is not user-friendly. It is not beginner-friendly. It would be very difficult for a beginner to learn the tool. It will take at least two months to get familiar with it. Building the playb...
What is your primary use case for ThreatQ?
We used the solution for threat mapping and managing IoCs.
 

Also Known As

McAfee ePO, ePolicy Orchestrator, Intel Security ePolicy Orchestrator, McAfee MVISION ePO
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

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
Radar, Bitdefender, Crowdstrike, FireEye, IBM Security
Find out what your peers are saying about McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator vs. ThreatQ and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.