McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator Reviews

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is used to manage endpoints, networks, compliance, and data security.

The most valuable features of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator are the easy-to-use console, and lots of reports, such as customized reports and inventory reports. Additionally, overall the centralized management is very good where you can see the compliance levels and inventory.

The solution could improve the EDR component in many areas, such as the zero-day and persistent threats. The implementation is also complex for this feature.

There are different policies in the solution, such as EPO for EDR, and for Sandboxing, but when it comes to the EPO it is only for the policy orchestration and not for the analysis, incident management, or for the team who is working on the cyber security. They need to know how to use a different console, which is integrated nicely in their cloud platform called Envision but they have not done it in the EPO. 

I don't know what the McAfee strategy is, why they have not integrated the EDR analysis piece into the EPO. It is already available in the Envision, but not in the EPO. This is a difficulty. Whenever there needs to be any analysis, correlation, and in-depth EDR functionality it is not part of the EDR. There is a separate console for it. We need to depend on the inventory and the policy, and the EPO, but when it comes to analysis and in-depth alert details, then we need to dive into another console.

There are times when it is good to have one console to allow people to receive the trained analysis and historical data related to that particular incident.

I have been using McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator for approximately 10 years.

A lot of the components of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, such as Sandboxing, DX, and  ATP are not stable. However, the antivirus is stable.

The scalability of the McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is good.

We have more than 75,000 users using this solution. We are using a combination of McAfee and FireEye where the antivirus part is provided by McAfee and the EDR part is covered by FireEye. Our next target is to combine both of these elements, either FireEye or McAfee.

The technical support of McAfee is great.

I have used other solutions, such as FireEye and Cisco solutions.

The deployment of the McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is very easy on the endpoints. However, deploying the solution in a large enterprise is very difficult. In terms of all the components of McAfee, it is difficult. There are lots of false positives and manual effort required for deploying the advanced component section.

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator requires lots of maintenance and we have had many performance issues. We have done maintenance for our databases approximately three times and it is a difficult job. The maintenance is time-consuming and it's a very difficult job to do.

When the database that we are managing is almost 70 - 80,000 systems, it is quite difficult to have an EPO, wherein everything is central, such as policy, database, asset, and inventory. There is a lot of load on the central server. For a long time, McAfee has been using central management where there are no distributed components. Everything is getting loaded on EPO and it is creating lots of maintenance work.

There is a license required to use this solution. If we use the additional components, such as DLP encryption, there is an additional cost. However, it is similar to a separate product altogether. If you want to use that or not, it is optional, but when you use it, it will cost you additional pricing.

My team worked on FireEye and Cisco solutions. When comparing McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator to both these solutions, there are pros and cons for each. Some features are positive and really good in McAfee in terms of the UI, and easy-to-use Console. However, when compared to advanced features, such as EDR, FireEye and Cisco are better compared to McAfee.

The antivirus measurement, compliance, and deploying the agents, are much easier in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator compared to FireEye and Cisco.

My advice to those wanting to implement McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is to keep it distributed. Whatever components you can distribute in terms of connectors need to be put in different locations. It will be taken care of properly. Otherwise, there will be lots of noncompliance issues and lots of loads on the network because it is bandwidth-intensive.

If we have a larger user database for the organization, then keep it local. To allow a minimum load on the EPO. We should do the maintenance of the EPO quarterly in terms of the database maintenance or in terms of the laws, policies. It should be reviewed periodically with the help of your support to make sure that your policies will not go wrong or your database will not create any errors. If there are errors there will be a problem to recover the data. If we don't do the maintenance, then there are quite chances of crashing the database

I rate McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution in order to distribute the security features to all the nodes.

The user interface is great.

Technical support is very helpful.

It's great how the solution distributes the policy. For example, application control, distribution management, et cetera. The functionality is fine. I don't have any issues. 

The integration capabilities are good.

The solution can scale well.

The pricing of the product is reasonable. 

Sometimes agents hang. We have to reinstall the agents. On top of that, we have too many advisories for ePO. There are stability issues. 

I have been using the solution for three to four years at this point. 

We've had issues with stability. I would like the product to be more stable. 

Occasionally, we get bugs and we have to deal with them, and it's not ideal.

The product can scale if a company needs it to.

I do plan to scale and would like to use it for more of the system nodes.

We have found the technical support to be very helpful. They are responsive and available when we need them to help us troubleshoot. We are satisfied with their level of service. We haven't had any issues with them.

We pay a licensing fee on a yearly basis. The pricing itself is fine. I don't consider it to be overly expensive. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user. I don't have a business relationship with McAfee.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We use McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator for security and protection from ransomware, malware, and malicious files.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the central management console, which is used for DLP, endpoint security, drive encryption, and application control.

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator should improve its integration with other tools.

I have been using McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator for five years.

I rate McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator ten out of ten for stability.

Around 600 users use the solution in our organization.

I rate McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

For the solution's implementation, we have an on-premise server. We are using the APO application on that server, and we are managing all endpoints from the APO console. We have created multiple policies for USB blocking, ransomware protection, and URL blocking from the APO console. We have also created the schedule for weekly scanning.

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is expected to be deployed in two hours.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a three out of ten.

Overall, I rate McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator ten out of ten.

We use it to encrypt the shared folder file our customers receive containing information about the many rules and teams. So we abide by them and allow each team to access just files on it.

I believe the encryption is interrupting the file, and they're guiding it to a specific growth.So, that's a variety.

There are some issues we are having with updating our Windows server. So we need to contact support or access our support portal.

So, they should modify the cybersecurity suites to allow the customer to work properly again.

I have been using the solution for a year. 

Most of the data is stable until we apply hundreds of updates, so when it comes to updating, it is not stable. We will have to modify the type of suits by our sale. For the console services, the ePO server is not the end user. We are doing it in one hour.

It is a scalable solution. There are around 3,000 to 4,000 customers, and end users using the product. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

They are good and give quick responses. I rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is easy. It de[pends on the way you install it. The solution was deployed within a couple of hours. Four to five people are required for the maintenance.

I recommend the solution to those planning to use it. I rate the overall solution ten out of ten.

We use McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator to see attacks in real time. We also use it for storage as well.

I like the solution's feasibility. McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is also better and easier to use than other ePOs.

The installation process is quite difficult and requires technical support.

I've been using this solution for one month.

It is a stable solution.

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is scalable, and we have 25 users in our organization. We are an enterprise level company.

The implementation process is complex and requires four to six people, including a QA person.

It was a complex process because we needed access approvals to use SaaS, and the URLs would get decommissioned most of the time. We also faced problems with end-to-end encryption.

I implemented it with the help of my senior architect.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator at eight.

We have deployed McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator in the cloud and on-premise.

We are using McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator mainly for device policy management. We have many different solutions that we manage with McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator.

The valuable feature of the McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is the management of the policies.

I have used McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator within the last 12 months.

I have found McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator to be stable.

We have approximately 1,200 users using McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator in my organization. If we expand we will purchase more licenses.

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator support has been helpful. However, sometimes when  I raise the case they take a while to answer. For example, the last time I used them it took them two weeks to reply back by email. No one has contacted me back since. They should improve their service.

I have not used another solution in this category.

The implementation of the McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is simple, it took us approximately 45 minutes.

We did the implementation of the McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator in-house.

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is not an expensive solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as an antivirus, a client antivirus. We have a license for device control from where we can block USBs, DVDs, smartphones, etc from connecting to the computers.

Regarding malware, it's great at detecting viruses and malware. We haven't had the problem for the last ten years. It just works.

It's pretty simple in terms of managing things on ePO. You have to have some experience, however, it's pretty simple to understand.

The solution is easy to deploy. I have to do the upgrade now from an older version to the latest one, and I'm checking both upgrade and fresh install of the latest version, and it seems pretty easy.

The solution is quite stable. We haven't had any problem since it is installed.

The scalability is great.

I can't speak to what is missing from the latest version. We have an old version and in the coming weeks, we are going to upgrade to the latest version. We have to see on that one if there are any missing features. 

One thing that I don't like is that McAfee products change very often and upgrade very often. The annoying thing that I have noticed is that these new products do not work anymore on older Windows versions. Let's say a new version of antivirus does not install on Windows 8. You have to implement an older McAfee in an old version of Windows. 

I have been working at this company for about six years. The company has maybe used it for at least 10 years.

The stability has been great for a decade. It requires very little maintenance and runs without issue. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

You can easily scale the solution up. It's not a problem.

We haven't required technical support in the last few years. Everything that has to be done, we have done it by ourselves. We didn't have any big issues to report that would have required support. Therefore, I can't comment on them from personal experience.

That said, we have had some online meetings with the McAfee staff to see the new products and new licenses that we want to buy from them. 

We might, in the future, implement Endpoint Detection and Response, however, for now, we haven't got that feature.

The deployment process is pretty easy. Soon, I'll have to go to the latest version, and we will have to do two sequential upgrades to go to another version and then to the latest version. I'm seeking to install it from the beginning to a new server and so far it looks to be pretty simple.

I can't speak to the cost of the solution. Another department handles that aspect.

We are customers and end-users.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We're pretty much using it as a traditional AV.

It has brought what it is built for. It has brought traditional AV capabilities and signature-based scanning.

The general endpoint protection is valuable, and it is easy to manage.

There should be more insights and completeness into the cyber kill chain, similar to CrowdStrike and SentinelOne. It just seems a little outdated in being 100% signature-based without all of the insights and protections that come with CrowdStrike and SentinelOne. Overall, they've got some catching up to do if they plan to compete in the comprehensive EDR space.

I have been using this solution for five years.

It is stable. There are no concerns there. It didn't consume a lot of resources and things like that. We didn't see issues from that perspective.

It is fairly easy to add new devices. It is controlled within our environment. 

All employees and all servers are using it. It is being used extensively, but we don't plan to increase its usage because we're looking to get a replacement for this solution.

Their technical support is average.

It wasn't McAfee ePO. It was the even lesser AV five years ago. It has been McAfee ever since from my AV protection standpoint.

Its initial setup was straightforward. It took a couple of days. It has been pretty easy to add new machines ever since.

It was an in-house job. In terms of maintenance, it requires minimal maintenance. We have our security services provider to take care of maintenance.

It is attractively priced. It is a fraction of what we're going to pay for CrowdStrike or SentinelOne, but it only has a fraction of the capabilities as well.

It is great if you're looking for a traditional signature-based AV product, but if you're looking for a more comprehensive EDR solution, then CrowdStrike and SentinelOne are clearly the top two within that space.

Overall, I would rate it a seven out of 10. If I'm rating it for a traditional AV product, I'd give it a nine or 10 because it totally solves that use case, but if I'm rating it against a comprehensive EDR solution, which includes traditional AV and next-gen behavioral capability, then it would be a five, but they're not necessarily apples to apples.