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

MetaDefender vs Trellix Network Detection and Response 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 Network Detection a...
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
12th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
40
Ranking in other categories
Network Detection and Response (NDR) (10th)
 

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 Network Detection and Response is 3.9%, up from 3.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Trellix Network Detection and Response3.9%
MetaDefender0.9%
Other95.2%
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.
Jose Vargas - PeerSpot reviewer
Agente De Servicios Técnicos at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Has improved threat detection workflows and supports seamless customer monitoring
The best features Trellix Network Detection and Response offers include very good threat detection, and I believe that it is one of the best XDR tools. For example, ePO and XDR components are very comfortable and similar to many other tools for this type of monitoring, and I have received very good feedback for this tool. What makes Trellix Network Detection and Response stand out for me compared to other tools is the way you can detect threats. It is very easy and comfortable to use, and the detection shows clearly on the screen, which is very easy to understand. Regarding the features, I think that the integration with other platforms is very comfortable with the customer because we can integrate it with any switch or firewall, and it is comfortable to add this tool. Trellix Network Detection and Response has positively impacted my organization as I have improved my knowledge about detection and response. I have already used some other tools such as CrowdStrike and Umbrella, but Trellix is one of the best that I have tested. I believe that for my organization, Trellix has helped a lot with detection and supported our customers effectively. Trellix Network Detection and Response is a great tool that integrates with a lot of security tools such as Palo Alto, which is a good firewall. If you have these types of tools, your organization would benefit greatly.

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."
"We wanted to cross-reference that activity with the network traffic just to be sure there was no lateral movement. With Trellix, we easily confirmed that there was no lateral network involvement and that nothing else was infected. It helped us correlate the events and feel confident in our containment."
"If we are receiving spam emails, or other types of malicious email coming from a particular email ID, then we are able to block them using this solution."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from how it allows users to do the investigation part. Another important part of the product that is valuable is associated with how it gives information to users in the form of a storyline."
"It protects from signature-based attacks and signature-less attacks. The sandboxing technology, invented by FireEye, is very valuable. Our customers go for FireEye because of the sandboxing feature. When there is a threat or any malicious activity with a signature, it can be blocked by IPS. However, attacks that do not have any signatures and are very new can only be blocked by using the sandboxing feature, which is available only in FireEye. So, FireEye has both engines. It has an IPS engine and a sandbox engine, which is the best part. You can get complete network protection by using FireEye."
"Over the thirteen years of using the product, we have not experienced a single compromise in our environment. During the COVID period, we faced numerous DDoS attacks, and the tool proved highly effective in mitigating these threats."
"The installation phase was easy."
"Its ability to find zero-day threats, malware and anything malicious has greatly improved my customer's organization, especially for protecting the users' browser."
"Very functional and good for detecting malicious traffic."
 

Cons

"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
"Technical support needs improvement as sometimes engineers are not available promptly, especially during high-severity incidents."
"They can maybe consider supporting some compliance standards. When we are configuring rules and policies, it can guide whether they are compliant with a particular compliance authority. In addition, if I have configured some rules that have not been used, it should give a report saying that these rules have not been used in the last three months or six months so that I disable or delete those rules."
"The initial setup was complex because of the nature of our environment. When it comes to the type of applications and functions which we were looking at in terms of identifying malicious threats, there would be some level of complexity, if we were doing it right."
"The product's integration capabilities are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"If you want to search the hashes in the environment, you need to put in IOCs one by one, making it a very hectic job."
"It is very expensive, the price could be better."
"Management of the appliance could be greatly improved."
"Improvements could be achieved through greater integration capabilities with different firewall solutions. Integrating with the dashboard itself for different firewalls so users can also pull tags into their firewall dashboard."
 

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."
"Because of what the FireEye product does, it has significantly decreased our mean time in being able to identify and detect malicious threats. The company that I work with is a very mature organization, and we have seen the meantime to analysis decrease by at least tenfold."
"The user fee is not as high but the maintenance fee is expensive."
"There are some additional services that I understand the vendor provides, but our approach was to package all of the features that we were looking to use into the product."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The pricing is fair, a little expensive, but fair. We've evaluated other products, and they're similarly priced."
"FireEye is comparable to other products, such as HX, but seems expensive. It may cause us to look at other products in the market."
"Its price is a bit high. A small customer cannot buy it. Its licensing is on a yearly basis."
"Pricing and licensing are reasonable compared to competitors."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise19
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about FireEye Network Security?
We wanted to cross-reference that activity with the network traffic just to be sure there was no lateral movement. With Trellix, we easily confirmed that there was no lateral network involvement an...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for FireEye Network Security?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Trellix Network Detection and Response is very great.
What needs improvement with FireEye Network Security?
I would like to see in Trellix Network Detection and Response more explanation about some details of the threat, and I wish it had more actions that you can take to contain the host or move it some...
 

Also Known As

OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
FireEye Network Security, FireEye
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
FFRDC, Finansbank, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Investis, Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, Bank of Thailand, City of Miramar, Citizens National Bank, D-Wave Systems
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft, Proofpoint and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP). Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.