We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security and NetWitness XDR based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Trellix Endpoint Security users like the ePolicy Orchestrator, the solution’s robust central management console. NetWitness XDR is commended for its prompt threat response, seamless integration capabilities, and user behavior analytics. Trellix could improve by reducing resource usage, enhancing stability, and making the solution more user-friendly. Users say NetWitness XDR could improve its threat intelligence and investigation. Some suggested updates to its reporting engine.
Service and Support: Some users say Trellix support is helpful and responsive, while others believe there is room for improvement in communication and resolution times. NetWitness XDR provides effective 24/7 technical support. While some were satisfied with the response times, others experienced delays of up to 48 hours.
Ease of Deployment: Setting up Trellix Endpoint Security is simple if the user has some expertise. Some users found the initial setup of NetWitness uncomplicated, but others faced challenges.
Pricing: Trellix Endpoint Security’s pricing is considered flexible, competitive, and about average compared to other solutions. The total cost of NetWitness XDR depends on the environment and the number of endpoints. Larger users can receive discounts, but users say the solution might be too pricey for smaller companies. NetWitness XDR provides various licenses, including some that feature premium support.
ROI: Users reported saving time by implementing Trellix Endpoint Security. NetWitness XDR has demonstrated positive outcomes by improving threat detection capabilities and facilitating digital forensics.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Trellix Endpoint Security over NetWitness XDR. Users praised Trellix's extensive management capabilities, low resource usage, and reasonable price. NetWitness XDR receives mixed reviews for its slower performance, and complex licensing. Users also that NetWitness could improve its threat intelligence and user interface. Trellix Endpoint Security earned positive feedback for its customer service and support, while some NetWitness users were unsatisfied with response times.
"Microsoft Defender XDR is scalable."
"Within advanced threat hunting, the tables that have already been defined by Microsoft are helpful. In the advanced threat hunting tab, there were different tables, and one of the tables was related to device info, device alert, and device events. That was very helpful. Another feature that I liked but didn't have access to was deep analysis."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that Microsoft Defender XDR is easy to integrate with other Microsoft platforms or products."
"The product is very easy to use."
"It has been great for us. Previously, we didn't have a solution to protect us, especially from malware, whereas now, we are getting protection up front, especially from the malware attacks coming through emails or endpoints."
"The ability to hunt that IM data set or the identity data set at the same time is valuable. As incident response professionals, we are very used to EDRs and having device process registry telemetry, but a lot of times, we do not have that identity data right there with us, so we have to go search for it in some other silo. Being able to cross-correlate via both datasets at the same time is something that we can only do in Def"
"Advanced hunting is good. I like that. We can drill down to lots of details."
"The ability to integrate and observe a more cohesive narrative across the products is crucial."
"The log correlation is good."
"It's a scalable solution. We have around five to eight customers using RSA NetWitness Endpoint, and we hope to increase the number of users."
"The most valuable feature is the way it captures the traffic, and it contains every detail of the communication."
"This solution allows us to locate the malware in real-time."
"It helps our security team respond more accurately when there are threats, then we get less false positives or negatives."
"They have recently updated the features and the most valuable ones are the instant threat response, ease of use, web interface, integration, and easy access. RSA NetWitness Endpoint is very compatible with other solutions and technologies. However, they do not rely on third-party solutions and have most features built-in."
"The stability of the RSA NetWitness Endpoint is very good."
"We've contacted technical support several times. They've been very good. They have been able to help us resolve our issues."
"The performance is good."
"Communication with all Mcafee products (also 3rd parties) by DXL infrastructure."
"The solution includes a good combination of features for both signature and signature-less."
"Would benefit with the addition of DLP features."
"We can manage everything from the central console and it is very easy."
"It is a stable solution...The solution's technical support is good."
"Their malware detection rate is excellent for all type of devices and the anti-theft products are good and easy to use."
"One valuable feature is Threat Prevention with the on-demand scan."
"At times, when we have an incident email and we click on the link for that incident, it opens a pop-up, but there is nothing. It has happened a couple of times."
"I'd like to see a wider solution that includes not only desktop devices but also other devices, such as servers, storage cabinets, switching equipment, et cetera."
"365 Defender has multiple subsets, including Defender for Cloud Apps. When integrating Defender for Cloud Apps with apps on third-party cloud platforms like AWS or GCP, there are limitations on our ability to control user activities. If Microsoft added more control over third-party products, that would be a game-changer and help us quite a lot."
"We should be able to use the product on devices like Apple, Linux, etc."
"It would be beneficial to have a more seamless experience with everything consolidated in one place, particularly when dealing with aspects related to the Exchange console."
"The interface could be improved. For example, if you want to do a phishing simulation for your employees, it can take a while to figure out what to do. The interface is a bit messy and could be updated. It isn't too bad, but doing some things can be a long process."
"Defender also lacks automated detection and response. You need to resolve issues manually. You can manage multiple Microsoft security products from a single portal, and all your security recommendations are in one place. It's easy to understand and manage. However, I wouldn't say Defender is a single pane of glass. You still need to switch between all of the available Microsoft tools. You can see all the alerts in one panel, but you can't automate remediation."
"The only problem I find is that the use cases are built-in. There is no template available that you can modify according to your organization's standards. What they give is very generic, the market standard, but that might not be applicable to every organization."
"Threat detection could be better."
"RSA NetWitness Network could improve on integration with non-native application integration."
"The threat intelligence could improve in RSA NetWitness Endpoint."
"Its price could be improved. It is an expensive product. Its training is also too expensive. It would be great if they can have a better pricing scheme for the training."
"The deployment process is complex. I don't know why, but this solution will suddenly stop working. Logs stop coming. Often, one thing or another stops working. Most of the time, one of my team members is working with troubleshooting and working with technical support. Log passing is also one of the biggest challenge."
"I would like to see Security Orchestration and Response Automation (SOAR) integration."
"NetWitness Endpoint's blocking feature does not work properly - if there's a malicious process, it's not possible to kill it via a custom rule unless and until it's flagged as malicious."
"The solution is modular, for example you can buy the RSA ePack, which you buy as a module is not part of the conduit solution. They could include it and have it as an all-in-one solution."
"The resolution time should be faster."
"When it runs in the background of the endpoint, the devices get slowed down for some applications."
"Technical support is an area that can be improved because sometimes, the response time is a bit slow and the explanation is short."
"There are two main areas that require improvement. One is the size of the packages. Although I'll admit manageability is good, if I want to deploy, let's say just the antivirus or just the firewall, each of those package sizes are quite large. They are sometimes as big as 200MB or 250MB. When I have operations in remote areas where connectivity is always poor, it's difficult. To deploy such a package in a remote location over the internet or something like that is always challenging."
"Users can just install software into their computers. We need some sort of application control system that, if there are any pieces of software that are not whitelisted, then the solution could flag it or maybe alert the administers. That would be very helpful."
"I've encountered minor challenges related to encryption."
"If there's a possibility for remote assistance or investigation support in the future, it would be beneficial. Currently, we use another remote software for such purposes. If this feature could be included in the next version, that would be an improvement. The feature is called Remote Administration. I'm somewhat satisfied, but there's an issue I recently encountered. When attempting to scan a suspected host machine, Symantec Endpoint Security did not provide any alerts. However, when we installed Malwarebytes and ran a scan, it detected a threat that wasn't identified by Symantec. We raised this concern with the team for resolution, and the investigation is still ongoing."
"The product could do more to keep administration alerted to detected threats on endpoints."
NetWitness XDR is ranked 40th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 15 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 94 reviews. NetWitness XDR is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of NetWitness XDR writes "Beneficial single unified dashboard, good native application integration, and high availability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". NetWitness XDR is most compared with Darktrace, ExtraHop Reveal(x), CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our NetWitness XDR vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.