We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response 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."The stability is very good."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"This is stable and scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"It is a scalable solution and very easy to use."
"Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) offers endpoint protection and helps collect information while also allowing users to investigate malicious files in an IT environment...It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...I rate the solution's technical support team a nine and a half or ten out of ten."
"The biggest strength of the solution is that it's an integrated product that includes EDR and antivirus."
"If there is any malicious behavior in the workstation or server, the tool stops or isolates it automatically and generates alerts."
"What we're using the most and what we found valuable in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response are Web Control, Advanced Threat Protection, and Threat Prevention features."
"The most valuable feature I found in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the guided analytics or guided EDR investigation."
"Trellix has a user-friendly interface."
"The only issue that we have today is with false positives. We have too many false positives with the solution."
"It offers good scalability."
"The product is stable."
"WithSecure includes an encrypted drive that stores a key for accessing the encrypted data."
"I use the solution to protect our infrastructure. The tool has special frames for banking. There is an additional secure filter for banking-related pages. It protects me from viruses, malware, and attacks."
"It is a scalable solution."
More WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response Pros →
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"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."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The main drawbacks are resources and processing time, as it consumes a lot of CPU and RAM."
"An area for improvement in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the historical search. For example: when you have information on the artifact and a precedent, you want to do a search, and that is a bit lacking in the tool."
"The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
"The alert feature of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response needs improvement because for you to get the alerts, you have to log on to the portal. What my company needs is a tool that sends you alerts. For example, if it detects a threat on your machine, it should send you an alert. My company gets the alerts instead from the antivirus software rather than the EDR. If you want to see the alerts on McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, you have to connect to the system manually. Another area for improvement in the tool is the reporting. My company needs weekly and monthly reports about the alerts, but you can't extract reports from McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, so a decision was made to move to another EDR solution, particularly Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, next month. My company tested Microsoft Defender for Endpoint via a POC for one to three months. The resource usage of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is also an area for improvement because it consumes a lot of memory. For example, during the on-demand scan, you can't work because of the high CPU usage. You need to schedule the scans. McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response has a lot of modules, but my company doesn't use all modules."
"The graphical view for nodes must be increased."
"The endpoints and utilization are too high, which impacts the production activity."
"The dashboard and reporting features are not so user-friendly or intuitive, so they need some work."
"The console has a lot of bugs, and it creates many issues."
"WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response is scalable. My company has 800-1000 customers."
"Its automated functionality could be better."
"The initial setup is very straightforward."
"The monthly reporting feature of WithSecure can be improved."
"The tool’s mobile version needs to be improved."
"The website rules are too complicated."
More WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response Cons →
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews while WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response is ranked 32nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 6 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4, while WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) writes "Multifeatured, with web control, advanced threat protection, and threat prevention capabilities, but its alerting and reporting features need improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response writes "Includes an encrypted drive that stores a key for accessing the encrypted data, but the monthly reporting feature can be improved". Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Trend Vision One, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Elastic Security and Cynet. See our Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vs. WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response 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.