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

Microsoft Defender for Identity vs Trellix Advanced Threat Defense comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 1, 2024

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

Microsoft Defender for Iden...
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
5th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (3rd), Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) (3rd)
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 September 2025, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Identity is 6.9%, down from 8.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Advanced Threat Defense is 1.9%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Microsoft Defender for Identity6.9%
Trellix Advanced Threat Defense1.9%
Other91.2%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

Peter Arabomen - PeerSpot reviewer
Has supported hybrid identity management while integrating well with cloud directory services
The only challenge I have with Microsoft Defender for Identity is the latency. I may not put that entirely on Microsoft, because latency could be network related. At times when trying to authenticate, the prompt is delayed. We tried implementing passwordless authentication, especially for on-premises workloads, but we haven't been able to achieve that. Passwordless authentication is part of the identity functionalities, particularly when it comes to enforcing passwordless for on-premises workloads. In terms of improvements, you can't create OUs on Azure AD. Regarding giving users privileges on what they can do across different OUs, I haven't seen that feature on Microsoft Defender for Identity. Microsoft Defender for Identity needs to be able to plug into third-party applications that are not Microsoft. For instance, with a human resource application used to manage users and leave requests, when staff leaves the organization, they are first exited from that application before AD. Integration between Azure AD and third-party applications would allow automatic syncing when removing staff. The initial setup of Microsoft Defender for Identity is not hard. However, setup is one thing, and getting value from the application end-to-end is another. It can be set up and running from the first day but not functioning optimally. Initially, when we did the setup, it wasn't optimal. Over time, with continuous improvement, which we're still doing, we've gotten to a comfortable level, but there's still room for improvement.
PP
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

"All the integration it has with different Microsoft packages, like Teams and Office, is good."
"I would rate Microsoft Defender for Identity at nine out of ten."
"One of our users had the same password for every personal and company account. That was a problem because she started receiving phishing emails that could compromise all of her accounts. Defender told us that the user was not changing their password."
"This solution has advanced a lot over the last few years."
"Microsoft Defender for Identity provides excellent visibility into threats by leveraging real-time analytics and data intelligence."
"The solution offers excellent visibility into threats."
"Auto-remediation is a valuable feature applied to Microsoft Defender for Identity, reducing the burden of investigating false positives."
"The basic security monitoring at its core feature is the most valuable aspect. But also the investigative parts, the historical logging of events over the network are extremely interesting because it gives an in-depth insight into the history of account activity that is really easy to read, easy to follow, and easy to export."
"Provides good exfiltration, and is an all-in-one product."
"It is very scalable."
"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."
"It stops in excess of twenty-five malware events per month, all of which could be critical to the business."
"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."
"It is stable and reliable."
"The most valuable features are the administration console and its detection and response module."
"I recommend this solution because of its ease of use."
 

Cons

"I would like to be able to do remediation from the platform because it is just a scanner right now. If you onboard a device, it shows you what is happening, but you can't use it to fix things. You need to go into the system to fix it instead."
"We observe a lot of false positives. Sometimes, when we go for a coffee break, we lock our screens. Locking the screen has a separate Windows event ID and sometimes I see it is detected as a failed login."
"One potential area for improvement could be exploring flexibility in the installation of Microsoft Defender for Identity agents."
"There is no option to remedy an issue directly from the console. If we see an alert, we can't fix it from the console. Instead, we must depend on other Microsoft products, such as MDE. That is a significant drawback. It simply works as a scanner, which can sometimes put enough load on the sensors. Immediate actions should be possible from the dashboard because. It can prevent issues from spreading further."
"An area for improvement is the administrative interface. It's basic compared to other administrative centers. They could make it more user-friendly and easier to navigate."
"The tracking instance needs to be configured appropriately."
"And when you are working in a priority IP address, Identity is not able to know that those IPs are from the company. It sees that the IPs are from Taiwan or from Hong Kong or from India, even though they are internal IPs, resulting in a lot of false positives."
"The solution should provide more detailed data regarding anomaly detections."
"There could be a tool that automatically updates all-new Microsoft IPs, which are available for free to connect to the client."
"Lacks remote capabilities not dependent on the internet."
"The only problem we can have is that as we have no API interface, there is no inspection of internal mail."
"This solution needs to be made "cloud ready"."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Defender for Identity is a little more expensive than other Microsoft products. Identity and Microsoft Defender for Cloud are both a bit costly."
"You won't be able to change your tenants from where you deploy them. For example, if you select Canada, they will charge you based on Canadian pricing. If you are also in London, when you deploy in Canada, the pound is higher than Canadian dollars, but your platform resources are billable in Canadian dollars. Using your pounds to pay for any of these things will be cheaper. Or, if you deploy in London, they will charge you based on your local currency."
"It is very affordable considering that other SIEM solutions are much more expensive and have many more licensing restrictions and fees."
"The product is costly, and we had multiple discussions with accounting to receive a discounted rate. However, on the open market, the tool is expensive."
"Microsoft Defender for Identity comes as part of the Microsoft E5 licensing stack."
"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.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
7%
Government
16%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Performing Arts
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Microsoft Defender for Identity?
Microsoft Defender for Identity provides excellent visibility into threats by leveraging real-time analytics and data intelligence.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Defender for Identity?
Microsoft can improve Microsoft Defender for Identity by ensuring that installation prerequisites are included in the setup process. Installing the solution presents challenges as numerous logs and...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Defender for Identity?
My personal use case for Microsoft Defender for Identity is that it is amazing. It provides very good and deep analytics about whatever is happening in the on-premises Active Directory. The sensors...
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?
There could be a tool that automatically updates all-new Microsoft IPs, which are available for free to connect to the client.
What is your primary use case for McAfee Advanced Threat Defense?
We use the solution for client management and security. We used the whole suite for client Firewall, antivirus, and everything provided by Trellix.
 

Also Known As

Azure Advanced Threat Protection, Azure ATP, MS Defender for Identity
McAfee Advanced Threat Defense
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft Defender for Identity is trusted by companies such as St. Luke’s University Health Network, Ansell, and more.
The Radicati Group, Florida International University, MGM Resorts International, County Durham andDarlington NHS Foundation Trust
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender for Identity vs. Trellix Advanced Threat Defense and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.