We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) and WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The stability is very good."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"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."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"I have not received any complaints about the performance."
"We have a cloud-based instance, so we can deploy all our configurations through the cloud. That's the beauty of FireEye."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its dashboard."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"It's very stable and reliable."
"The most valuable network security feature is the network sandbox solution. This sandbox feature works on traffic flow."
"It's good that it periodically scans all my drives. I can stay up to date with the status of my drivers and update them if needed."
"MVISION Endpoint is so much easier and so much simpler for the lay security personnel to handle."
"Both incoming and outgoing traffic is protected."
"The most valuable features of WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection are the clear useful portal and overall company protection."
"F-Secure is useful for keeping user machines up-to-date by pushing out security and critical updates."
"There is a layer of security to prevent a malicious agent (malware) from interrupting or stopping services, deleting or modifying registry entries or even stopping the antivirus from acting, ensuring that there will be no interruption of protection."
"On the cloud management page, the solution scales up very highly."
"The notifications and patch management features are valuable."
"We use the product for detecting network vulnerabilities and for software update purposes."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"Detections could be improved."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"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."
"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 solution lacks device control."
"The product needs to reduce the usage of RAM and CPU."
"The integration and display of the dashboards have to be done better."
"They could also increase or improve the scalability because to my knowledge the biggest bandwidth can only support up to 10 gigs of input."
"The central monitoring dashboard needs improvement."
"Upgrading to new versions isn't easy and it can take a long time. Also, other solutions' tamper protection features are better than FireEye's. Clients should have access to our local information, but they shouldn't change settings on the system itself."
"Intrusion detection and intervention seem to be falling behind the competition."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve by an overall simplification of the solution."
"The solution could improve by having more real-time responses. For example, when a license gets removed from a computer it does not update the records of the change. Additionally, when I installed Microsoft Windows Defender I was not able to send licenses through email to our tenants. The integration with other solutions could improve."
"I would like the part of Hash Analysis by external sources to be improved."
"There is no technical support available in the Middle East."
"There could be a dedicated security partner with essential knowledge."
"Resource consumption is suboptimal and could be improved."
"The program and cloud service management is in English. It's not a problem for me, however, it might be for users who don't speak English or use it regularly."
"But the biggest one for us is patch management because this has been our top priority when looking at alternatives. Every solution needs to have patch management, if that's possible. It would cut costs on our side if that feature were included, so we don't need to pay for two separate pieces of software."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews while WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection is ranked 37th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 7 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6, while WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection writes "Good for pushing out security updates but it needs to add patch management". Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Open EDR, whereas WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, Fortinet FortiClient, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) vs. WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection 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.