We performed a comparison between Sangfor Endpoint Secure and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"The stability is very good."
"The most valuable feature I have found in the system is its comprehensive end-to-end protection."
"The tool's most valuable features are control access, endpoint security, and load balancing of ISPs."
"We use the product for network protection from any malicious threat."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure has some good policy certificates."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The user-friendliness of Sangfor Endpoint Secure is particularly impressive. Even with basic technical knowledge, users can easily navigate the system, make changes, and implement updates."
"What stands out to me is the dual-end user interface they provide."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP."
"The exploit guard and malware protection features are very useful. The logon tracker feature is also very useful. They have also given new modules such as logout backup, process backup. We ordered these modules from the FireEye market place, and we have installed these modules. We are currently exploring these features."
"The activation of features within ENS and the collection of threats into a single console is a strong point."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint is stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its dashboard."
"FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front."
"I found the initial setup to be easy."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"The support needs improvement."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"Sometimes, the VPN is not secure and doesn't work properly in Sangfor Endpoint Secure."
"Currently, the tool lacks reporting functionalities."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure performs poorly."
"I believe Sangfor Endpoint Secure could improve in terms of its user interface and management capabilities."
"There are a few areas for improvement. We have encountered licensing issues on occasion, and sometimes updates don't apply properly."
"It would be much more convenient if the migration tool could be installed directly on the customer's VMs, enabling a smoother migration process to the new infrastructure, with potential restrictions addressed accordingly."
"It is complicated to establish a tunnel due to technical issues in the VPN system."
"They have something called Managed Detection and Response. They get intel from their customers, and that intel is shared with the rest of FireEye's customers. I want to subscribe to their intel, but that is not available to us."
"The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux. We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap."
"Malware detection can be better. It doesn't have support and detection for the recent malware, but it has a compensatory control where it can do the behavior-based assessment and alert you when there is something malicious or unexpected. For example, when a certain user is executing the privilege command, which is not normal. These dynamic detections are good, and they compensate for malware detection."
"The complexity of advanced modules can be improved."
"The central monitoring dashboard needs improvement."
"One suggestion is they should reduce the constant notifications. Whenever I open my laptop, there are too many notifications from McAfee, and it gets annoying."
"They could also increase or improve the scalability because to my knowledge the biggest bandwidth can only support up to 10 gigs of input."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Sangfor Endpoint Secure is ranked 30th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 7 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 49 reviews. Sangfor Endpoint Secure is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Sangfor Endpoint Secure writes "Provides a unified and multi-layer security solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Sangfor Endpoint Secure is most compared with Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon, Open EDR and Bitdefender GravityZone EDR, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Open EDR. See our Sangfor Endpoint Secure vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.
