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.
"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."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"We really like the dashboard from Trellix and we've found that it's pretty informative."
"The loss prevention feature would be the most valuable."
"Threat prevention is valuable because most clients use other solutions like antivirus as part of web protection. I don't find that kind of solution useful."
"The detection is great and the solution is constantly improving."
"It's quite easy to install agents."
"I like trap prevention DNS and threat prevention."
"The product is easy to use."
"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."
"What I like most about McAfee MVISION Endpoint is that it's very user-friendly. You do need some knowledge on how to navigate the portal, but as soon as you've gained that knowledge, navigation will no longer be an issue. I have no complaints about McAfee MVISION Endpoint. For me, the product is perfect the way it is. It's great right now, and it's doing good as it is."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The technical support services are good."
"It is easy to use, flexible, and stable. Because it is a cloud-based solution and it integrates all endpoints of the cloud, we can do an IOC-based search. It can search the entire enterprise and tell us the endpoints that are possibly compromised."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"The stability has been great."
"The agents are easy to deploy."
"Detections could be improved."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"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."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"An area of improvement for this solution is to make it easier to manage."
"The user interface could be improved by making it more user-friendly. There are multiple solutions and there is no clear line differentiating all of them. There is a centralized console where we manage everything but most of the administrators feel a little confused when it comes to managing multiple products from a single place."
"When it runs in the background of the endpoint, the devices get slowed down for some applications."
"It would be nice if the solution were to allow not just on-cloud management, but on-premises, as well."
"With McAfee, if there is a zero-day vulnerability, you have to download the patch for it from the McAfee website, then apply it to your endpoint."
"The solution has problematic encryption, which needs reforming."
"If there's a possibility for remote assistance or investigation support in the future, it would be beneficial. Currently, we use another remote software for such purposes. If this feature could be included in the next version, that would be an improvement. The feature is called Remote Administration. I'm somewhat satisfied, but there's an issue I recently encountered. When attempting to scan a suspected host machine, Symantec Endpoint Security did not provide any alerts. However, when we installed Malwarebytes and ran a scan, it detected a threat that wasn't identified by Symantec. We raised this concern with the team for resolution, and the investigation is still ongoing."
"The interface is complex."
"The customization capabilities of the solution are an area where it lacks, so it would be great if our company could customize the solution to meet the demands of our customers."
"They have something called Managed Detection and Response. They get intel from their customers, and that intel is shared with the rest of FireEye's customers. I want to subscribe to their intel, but that is not available to us."
"Impacts performance of the servers quite negatively."
"The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux. We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap."
"If you have another endpoint product running on the same machine, you have to fine tune functions from FireEye to avoid performance and user experience issues."
"I hope the solution can be used in cloud systems going forward."
"The product could be flexible and offer better pricing."
"The solution needs to work on memory consumption. It is too high."
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 48 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.