We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps and Trellix Network Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product’s most valuable feature is SQL database."
"The general usability of the solution is very straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is to stop shadow IT."
"Shadow IT discovery is the feature I like the most."
"The most valuable feature is the alerting system."
"The most valuable feature is its policy implementation."
"If your business requirements are relatively simple, it can get the job done."
"It's very easy to install and it includes the Intune portal from Microsoft where I can control all the devices from one place."
"The solution can scale."
"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 MVX Engine seems to be very capable against threats and the way it handles APTs is impressive."
"Support is very helpful and responsive."
"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."
"The product has helped improve our organization by being easy to use and integrate. This saves time, trouble and money."
"There could be more granular roles that are out of the box included in the product."
"Defender for Cloud apps is primarily useful for Azure apps. It has limited capabilities for applications based on other cloud platforms."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps’s technical support services needs improvement."
"It takes some time to scan and apply the policies when there is some sensitive information. After it applies the policies, it works, but there is a delay. This is something for which we are working with Microsoft."
"They should continue integration with all other Microsoft security-related products. The integration with all the other products is still ongoing."
"This service would be better if it had a separate license, only for this service, that could be used to track usage."
"The integration with macOS operating systems needs to be better."
"I would like to see them include more features in the older licenses. There are some features that are not available, such as preventing or analyzing cloud attacks."
"Technical packaging could be improved."
"A better depth of view, being able to see deeper into the management process, is what I'd like to see."
"The problem with FireEye is that they don't allow VM or sandbox customization. The user doesn't have control of the VMs that are inside the box. It comes from the vendor as-is. Some users like to have control of it. Like what type of Windows and what type of applications and they have zero control over this."
"There is a lot of room for Improvement in the offering, from cost to functionality. It is pretty straightforward to implement which is an advantage. However, it falls short in pricing, detection capabilities, and, most importantly, reporting and policy management."
"It would be a good idea if we could get an option to block based upon the content of an email, or the content of a file attachment."
"Stability issues manifested in terms of throughput maximization."
"It doesn't connect with the cloud, advanced machine learning is not there. A known threat can be coming into the network and we would want the cloud to look up the problem. I would also like to see them develop more file replication and machine learning."
"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."
More Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is ranked 11th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 30 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 36 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is rated 8.4, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps writes "Integrates well and helps us in protecting sensitive information, but takes time to scan and apply the policies and cannot detect everything we need". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Offers in-depth investigation capabilities, integrates well and smoothly transitioned from a lower-capacity appliance to a higher one". Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Qualys VMDR, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Zscaler Internet Access, Fortinet FortiGate and Vectra AI. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.
