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.
"All of the security components are valuable including, antiphishing, antispam, and stage three antivirus."
"The EDR and the way it automatically responds to ransomware and other attacks are valuable features."
"The Endpoint Manager is incredible; it has a very straightforward interface and is exceedingly easy to use. Pulling out and deploying different tags or resources is a simple task across various departments with different levels of security. The notifications are also simple and satisfying; it's great to see the bubble informing us which devices are compliant and which are waiting to update."
"The unified view of the threat landscape on a central dashboard is the most valuable feature."
"The threat intelligence is excellent."
"Microsoft 365 Defender is a stable solution."
"I like 365 Defender's advanced threat hunting. The dashboard is user-friendly with templates for site policies, etc. The most important use case is evaluating the risk links and applications."
"Microsoft Defender XDR is scalable."
"The most valuable feature of RSA NetWitness Network is the single unified dashboard from which you can manage all the different products of RSA. Additionally, the integration with native applications is good."
"NetWitness Endpoint's most valuable features are its interoperability across many different operating systems and the ease of pivoting from network to endpoint via a single console."
"Ability to isolate the machine when there are malicious files."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the way it captures the traffic, and it contains every detail of the communication."
"The most valuable features are reporting from the ePO console and the advanced threat protection (ATP)."
"The most valuable feature is ease of use."
"The solution is reliable."
"Their malware detection rate is excellent for all type of devices and the anti-theft products are good and easy to use."
"The primary reason the solution is good is because of its ease-of-use."
"A big advantage of McAfee Endpoint Security is the ability to manage very big environments. We are supporting environments with 200,000 to 300,000 endpoints. The ability to manage with one single console is very important for us. McAfee has phenomenally improved in terms of detection. It provides real-time detection and response with the error, Real Protect, and reputations. It is not only based on signatures but also on behavior analytics, artificial intelligence, or machine learning. We have environments that never had issues with ransomware in the last 20 years. McAfee has a very good performance in this field."
"It also allows multifunctionality within a single platform."
"The product is fairly reliable."
"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."
"I personally have not seen much evidence of how Defender can enhance the story of zero trust for enterprises."
"There is definitely scope for improvement in the automation area. Because the solution is a SaaS platform, we don't have the overall ability to automate stuff.... There is no direct way to go ahead because it's a SaaS platform."
"The documentation on their website is somewhat outdated and doesn't show properly. I wanted to try a query in Microsoft Defender 365. When I opened the related documentation from the security blog on the Microsoft website, the figures were not showing. It was difficult to understand the article without having the figures. The figures were there in the article, but they were not getting loaded, which made the article obsolete."
"For some scenarios, it provides good visibility into threats, and for some scenarios, it doesn't. For example, sometimes the URLs within the emails have destinations, and you do get a screenshot and all further details, but it's not always the case. It would be good if they did a better job of enabling that for all the emails that they identified as malicious. When you get an email threat, you can go into the email and see more details, but the URL destination feature doesn't always show you a screenshot of the URL in that email. It also doesn't always give you the characteristics relating to that URL. It would be quite good if the information is complete where it says that we identified this URL, and this is what it looks like. There should be some threat intel about it. It should give you more details."
"The web filtering solution needs to be improved because currently, it is very simple."
"Since all of our databases are updated and located in the cloud, I would like additional support for this."
"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."
"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."
"This solution needs an upgrade in reporting. I have heard from RSA that they are working on this, but as of yet it is not available."
"The contamination feature could be improved."
"RSA NetWitness Network could improve on integration with non-native application integration."
"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."
"We would like to see the hunting and investigation features of this solution improved, in order to provide better visibility of issues."
"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 this solution to do what Palo Alto traps does because I would only need to run this one product."
"While we are pleased with the endpoint solution, there should also be a separate one for the firewall."
"There is room to improve with scalability."
"The solution consumes a lot of end user memory and CPU. Trellix doesn't really focus much on the anti-malware side."
"McAfee GW Security and McAfee Child Safety need some improvement as they are relatively new."
"Signatures to protect against new attacks."
"We’re facing remote installation issues sometimes:"
"Recently, Trellix has introduced a CDR, which involves more manual response than automatic. I believe they should enhance the system by adding features like automated response and the ability to create custom playbooks. This is crucial for an EDR solution, and currently, Trellix lacks this feature while other products offer it."
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.
