We performed a comparison between McAfee MVISION Endpoint vs Trellix Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Of the two solutions, Trellix Endpoint Security is the more popular choice because not only is deployment easy, but it has an appealing set of product features and seems to have more powerful detection capabilities than McAfee MVISION.
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"The stability is very good."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"I feel McAfee Endpoint Security to be a good, mature product."
"McAfee EndPoint Security has a lot of good features that work well if they are implemented properly."
"The thing that I like is that they have gathered almost all the products in one management server, the ePolicy Orchestrator."
"The most valuable features are the adaptive tech on McAfee."
"This is a good solution for antivirus and malware protection."
"The solution includes a good combination of features for both signature and signature-less."
"Tech support is responsive. They're good, the very best."
"We really like the dashboard from Trellix and we've found that it's pretty informative."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"I have not received any complaints about the performance."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"It is a really strong solution for endpoint security."
"The threat scanning is excellent. It uses predictive technology and I can utilize attack data to help us fine-tune our systems and network infrastructure. This protects us against current and future attacks."
"It is very valuable in finding out unknown malware."
"We have a cloud-based instance, so we can deploy all our configurations through the cloud. That's the beauty of FireEye."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"The support needs improvement."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"I think it would be nice if Dynamic Application Control would come together with McAfee Endpoint Security."
"The product could do more to keep administration alerted to detected threats on endpoints."
"We would like to see all the features available on cloud."
"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."
"I would like to see more integration with third-party products."
"The initial setup is complex. It is a very complex product. You must have experience with it."
"There are times the solution has some additional software added that is not fully integrated properly, such as Exchange Group Sheild. It is quite old and is not fully integrated properly and could be improved."
"An area of improvement for this solution is to make it easier to manage."
"The product’s on-premise version is costly in terms of extra charges for SQL database and Windows server licenses."
"The customization capabilities of the solution are an area where it lacks, so it would be great if our company could customize the solution to meet the demands of our customers."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing. The price should be improved, it's high."
"The product could be flexible and offer better pricing."
"So far, McAfee MVISION Endpoint ticks off all of our boxes, but its pricing could always be better."
"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."
"I would like to see simple processing and reporting online."
"Performance is a problematic area in the solution needing improvement."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 94 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 48 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "It integrates well with other solutions, but the vendor needs more of a local presence and faster response". Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trend Micro Deep Security and Cisco Secure Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), Open EDR and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Trellix Endpoint Security vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.
It depends on what you want to achieve. With McAfee ENS you have complete coverage through McAfee solutions, that is, it has an AV engine (threat Protection), you have Advance Threat Protection (ATP), light control over browsers, and a firewall.
With MVISION Endpoint you add being able to manage Microsoft Defender from the MVISION ePO or EPO on-premise console. But the AV engine is Defender, not McAfee. So you depend on the potential and configuration you make of Defender.