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

MetaDefender vs Trellix Advanced Threat Defense comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

MetaDefender
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
37th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (37th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (38th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (19th)
Trellix Advanced Threat Def...
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
22nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of MetaDefender is 0.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Advanced Threat Defense is 1.9%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Trellix Advanced Threat Defense1.9%
MetaDefender0.9%
Other97.2%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.
PP
RSSI at SDIS49
Ensuring long-term reliability while seeking internal email management enhancements
Prisma is a commercial name of the firewall now, but we don't work with the cloud product. Only our company is using it and we do not recommend it to customers. For us, it's transparent because it's a cloud product, so we don't really know the version as it's always updated. We have not had any problem, but it's difficult to report on what's going on because some days they can wash out perhaps 100 mails, and then it's difficult to say how many attacks you have reached. The right email has been washed out and then nobody has complained. We do not use the Threat Visualization feature; as we are in MX, the mail is washed out before it is in the mail inbox of the user, thus avoiding any problem requiring a reservation. In fact, there is no integration with existing security frameworks. The only problem we can have is that as we have no API interface, there is no inspection of internal mail. I rate Trellix Advanced Threat Defense a nine out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
"Provides good exfiltration, and is an all-in-one product."
"It stops in excess of twenty-five malware events per month, all of which could be critical to the business."
"It is stable and reliable."
"I recommend this solution because of its ease of use."
"The fact that in 10 years, we have had no problem is the most valuable feature for us; it's really a washing machine, but the only problem we face is that it's difficult to report on this product."
"Its greatest strength is the DXL client which can rapidly disseminate attack information to all clients via the McAfee Agent instead of going through the ePO server."
"The most valuable features are the administration console and its detection and response module."
"It is very scalable."
 

Cons

"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"Make the ATD system a part of the whole product and take the whole thing onto the cloud. While it is there already, it is not to the same level as the on-premise version."
"We'd like them to be better at dealing with script threats."
"I would like to see future versions of the solution incorporate artificial intelligence technology."
"The initial setup was industry standard complex. It takes awhile and has a lot of planning involved. It could be simplified with product redesign."
"Lacks remote capabilities not dependent on the internet."
"There could be a tool that automatically updates all-new Microsoft IPs, which are available for free to connect to the client."
"This solution needs to be made "cloud ready"."
"The only problem we can have is that as we have no API interface, there is no inspection of internal mail."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
"Our licensing fees for this solution are approximately one million dollars per year."
"The product is expensive, but it is better than the rest of them in the industry."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
Government
15%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Performing Arts
11%
University
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about McAfee Advanced Threat Defense?
I recommend this solution because of its ease of use.
What needs improvement with McAfee Advanced Threat Defense?
I would like to see an API interface for internal email and control of outgoing email to make it closer to 10. It's necessary; today we have an MX interface, and it would be interesting to have an ...
What is your primary use case for McAfee Advanced Threat Defense?
We are working with Palo Alto products, specifically firewalls. We are only using Palo Alto Firewalls and not Cortex. With FireEye and Trellix, we only work with ETP now because the NDR function wh...
 

Also Known As

OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
McAfee Advanced Threat Defense
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
The Radicati Group, Florida International University, MGM Resorts International, County Durham andDarlington NHS Foundation Trust
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft, Proofpoint and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP). Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.