We performed a comparison between NetWitness XDR and Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Technical support is knowledgeable."
"This solution allows us to locate the malware in real-time."
"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."
"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. The use cases are also very easy. The visualizations of the use cases are magnificent. You cannot find this in any other solution. From my point of view, it is great."
"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."
"It is stable. We have been using it for some time, without any issues."
"They have recently updated the features and the most valuable ones are the instant threat response, ease of use, web interface, integration, and easy access. RSA NetWitness Endpoint is very compatible with other solutions and technologies. However, they do not rely on third-party solutions and have most features built-in."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the ability to isolate or quarantine devices and block or detect Ransomware and other well-known tools that are used to exploit vulnerabilities on devices."
"The biggest strength of the solution is that it's an integrated product that includes EDR and antivirus."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...I rate the solution's technical support team a nine and a half or ten out of ten."
"It is a scalable solution and very easy to use."
"The product provides a one-click recovery of encrypted files."
"What we're using the most and what we found valuable in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response are Web Control, Advanced Threat Protection, and Threat Prevention features."
"The most valuable feature I found in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the guided analytics or guided EDR investigation."
"This is a stable product."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Detections could be improved."
"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."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The deployment process is complex. I don't know why, but this solution will suddenly stop working. Logs stop coming. Often, one thing or another stops working. Most of the time, one of my team members is working with troubleshooting and working with technical support. Log passing is also one of the biggest challenge."
"RSA NetWitness Network could improve on integration with non-native application integration."
"The solution lacks a reporting engine."
"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 would like to see Security Orchestration and Response Automation (SOAR) integration."
"We would like to see the hunting and investigation features of this solution improved, in order to provide better visibility of issues."
"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."
"Threat detection could be better."
"The main drawbacks are resources and processing time, as it consumes a lot of CPU and RAM."
"The endpoints and utilization are too high, which impacts the production activity."
"The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
"The solution's downside stems from the fact that Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and McAfee MVISION Endpoint are not combined into a single solution, so from an improvement perspective, they need to be combined into a single solution."
"The graphical view for nodes must be increased."
"One of the issues about the product stems from the failure to work on its administrative scalability. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
"The alert feature of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response needs improvement because for you to get the alerts, you have to log on to the portal. What my company needs is a tool that sends you alerts. For example, if it detects a threat on your machine, it should send you an alert. My company gets the alerts instead from the antivirus software rather than the EDR. If you want to see the alerts on McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, you have to connect to the system manually. Another area for improvement in the tool is the reporting. My company needs weekly and monthly reports about the alerts, but you can't extract reports from McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, so a decision was made to move to another EDR solution, particularly Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, next month. My company tested Microsoft Defender for Endpoint via a POC for one to three months. The resource usage of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is also an area for improvement because it consumes a lot of memory. For example, during the on-demand scan, you can't work because of the high CPU usage. You need to schedule the scans. McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response has a lot of modules, but my company doesn't use all modules."
"The dashboard and reporting features are not so user-friendly or intuitive, so they need some work."
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
NetWitness XDR is ranked 35th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 15 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews. NetWitness XDR is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of NetWitness XDR writes "Beneficial single unified dashboard, good native application integration, and high availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) writes "Multifeatured, with web control, advanced threat protection, and threat prevention capabilities, but its alerting and reporting features need improvement". NetWitness XDR is most compared with Darktrace, ExtraHop Reveal(x), CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Trend Vision One. See our NetWitness XDR vs. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.
