Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

We provide services. We mainly use this solution for endpoint security and protection. We have cloud, hybrid, and on-premises deployments.

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.

The management console is a little bit difficult to understand for admins. You need a lot of time in order to become familiar with that. It is a little bit complicated and not too easy to understand. 

Its price can also be improved. Its price is higher than its competitors.

McAfee also needs to have better cloud integration and more data centers in the EU. The cloud center should be in Europe or in Germany. In Germany, it is really important to have access to your data within the same country. Customer data needs to be placed and processed in the same country.

I have been using this solution for 20 years. 

McAfee is very big. You can implement it in a very small environment but also in a very big environment. You don't have limits or limitations.

Technical support could be better. The first level of technical support has to support about 30 or 40 products, which is an impossible number to support. Therefore, their support teams at the first level needs the support of product specialists. You, in any case, get a professional product specialist at the second level, some times at the first level.

For the initial setup, McAfee always requires some kind of consulting, which is good for us as a provider. A customer cannot do an installation without help. It is not too easy for a customer, but it is fine for consultants.

Its price is very high. It is higher than its competitors, and it should be less.

You would be very happy with McAfee if you have the know-how of this solution and you have somebody who is an expert at this solution. McAfee is not too easy to understand, but when you understand the solution, you could be very happy with it.

I would rate McAfee Endpoint Security a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is for endpoint protection, to block malware and viruses.

We like the web control and firewall.

I have been using McAfee for twenty years. 

It's very stable.

Scalability also works nicely. It's easier to scale it out on thousands of machines.

We only require two staff members for maintenance. There around 16,000 users. 

They have two different kinds of support. One is enterprise support and one is normal support. They charge more for enterprise support and when we raise tickets we get a good response but with the normal support, their response is not quick. They don't give much preference to normal support. It can take three, four days, or even a week to get a reply from them.

Being in the IT industry, we have come across different products, McAfee and Defender plus Symantec, and Trend Micro. For my needs, I like McAfee the most. Symantec might be equivalent but I like McAfee the most.

There are good web, application, and firewall control features. It would be helpful if the controlling of connections coming to the PC could be done from McAfee's side so that we can block those connections. 

It's a good product. I would recommend it. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. It's easy to use and it's very powerful. It offers nice endpoint protection.

We use this product for our endpoint security.

The most valuable features are:  

- reporting facility using the ePO console for conformity and threat identification  

- using the advanced threat protection (ATP) 

- MNE module for customising and securing Windows Bitlocker.

We know that McAfee isn't the best antivirus and it can't protect us 100%, although we are okay with the level of protection that it gives us. I don't think that the problem lies in the antivirus, but rather, it's the user. Users are not happy with the antivirus and they try to solve the issue on their own, and that causes very big problems.

The is an incompatibility problem between Mcafee and Linux subsystem for Windows, another that has to do with Outlook and scripts. McAfee knows that, but the problem can't be solved at this time so we try to minimize the effect.

We have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for ten years.

In terms of stability, we haven't had many problems.

We use that solution for more that 10k station and servers, and we have space to grow...

The support that we get from McAfee is excellent.

We tried Bitdefender, F-Secure, and many other products before settling on McAfee. When our central agency switched to McAfee, we all adopted it.

The price of this product is good.

One of our subsidiaries has tried to switch products, although I don't know the reason why. Ultimately, the project was aborted.

My advice for anybody who is looking at McAfee Endpoint Security is simply to use it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This product is mainly used for detecting viruses and malware on the laptops and also to scan older, existing files.  

The ability to check a wide range of vulnerabilities and devices is a very valuable feature in this product. This is not really a user interface or manually driven product. VirusScan gives an alert to the user that a scan should be performed on their device and the user has to click it to initiate the scan. Then McAfee scans the device and it gives a report saying that it has run a scan of the system and now everything is fine. It runs for the user rather than manual scanning.  

We are using it so the company is providing better security coverage end-to-end. I am not sure how to improve on that because it already achieves that goal and updates constantly.  

One thing I think it should do is alert administration if some attack is happening in local systems. I am not seeing that kind of alert. When users run a scan on their own system and nothing is found, that is fine. But ideally, VirusScan also has to send a notification of the source of an attack if one is detected.  

For example, if the threat came from opening an email attachment, an alert could be broadcast to warn other users on the system not to open the same attachment and McAfee could do that automatically. Something like that. Or at least it should make a report or alert for the administrator so that they can take the proper action.  

For the last six to eight years we have been using McAfee VirusScan Enterprise.  

The stability of the solution is fine, actually, and we are satisfied. It does not have a problem working with the 10,000+ users in our organization. It checks and updates everything every day and the stability is there.  

The scalability with McAfee is good. We currently have about 10,000 laptops which we are using it to secure. It is globally distributed and everybody uses the data scanning to ensure data security is a high priority.  

The people are using it with roles that range from the top to the bottom of the corporation. It is mandatory to use McAfee to ensure that we are in compliance with security regulations as well as preventing data loss on our local systems.  

We have plans to increase the usage of this product as the employee base and the number of devices increases.  

I did not have a chance to interact with the technical support team at McAfee because our local internal IT takes care of everything when it comes to the maintenance. Some issues that we have occur because the product is not upgrading locally for whatever reason. Our IT people will handle that type of minor support issue for us.  

As far as I know, before this company used McAfee VirusScan as a solution for these past six to seven years, there was not another endpoint security protection product in place.   

The initial setup is straightforward for the administration. The end-user should not have to do anything. There is an automatic trigger and it scans devices on the network along with their files and automatically generates a report. That is all there is to it. It is updated through the central station which tracks the upgrades and the devices that it scans.  

The implementation is kind of done in incremental steps because it is a cloud solution. It is just being pushed from the system to the central location. The agent runs on every laptop and we either manually click it when it issues a notice that it is time to scan the device, or it triggers by itself. It automatically runs these processes without intervention.  

As always, the cost of the licenses has to be paid and it will be per user per year. But the cost is minimal because we have taken a sort of deal with McAfee for a site license.  

I recommend McAfee VirusScan to everyone in an enterprise environment. Part of the reason is that nowadays everyone is working from home. Their systems and devices have to be secure when they are connecting externally to the internal network with whatever device they are using. They should have at least one security solution in their system so that they can avoid vulnerabilities that they may encounter outside of the secure internal network. VirusScan ensures that is happening.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate McAfee VirusScan Enterprise as a nine-out-of-ten. It is a very good solution and gives good blanket protection.  

McAfee MVISION is security for integrated VMware and OpenSite cloud solutions.  

McAfee is fine as an endpoint. We are offering the product to clients for data protection. It is not about this being a reactive solution like a firewall. There should be a shield of gateways, wherever possible, whenever this security solution can be implemented.  

The biggest problem we had with this product was when the DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) did not respond well to a threat. We experienced one virus attack that the product did not catch. I do not know the exact CDC (Communication Device Class) details. That time, we did an analysis, but the systems crashed. We could not even access the infected file servers.  

Because we could not access the servers in that attack, we could not even remove all the threats. Eventually, what we had to do is find out which servers got infected and then we had to roll back those servers to a previous backup. It left us in a little bit of a vulnerable situation. It ended up not being what we hoped for in an endpoint solution.  

Because McAfee was infected, other endpoint protections were also affected that made the situation more difficult to resolve.  

Improvements that I would like to see in MVISION would be to provide some additional features for the cloud to make their product a one-stop solution. For example, every organization is going into hybrid-cloud. That may allow part of a solution on-site. That can be part of multi-tier platforms and would be more flexible.  

What they can do is offer more in order to be a leader in innovation for different architectures rather than for enterprise only. For example, the endpoint security product uses every desktop like service. They have the features for the hardware detection and the platform access, then on the application layers. These three layers are a part of the firewall. So these are the firewall and then there are other things they could be offering as a single source to create a more secure environment as a proactive solution.  

This is something that definitely could be improved, especially with intrusion detection and intervention. It is very important to do more to cover the security of these more invasive practices. So, they could improve things with a web application firewall, and improve intrusion detection and prevention. Those should be the key areas which they are focusing on right now to improve the utility of the product moving forward.  

If you have a look into the Gartner report, there are many companies that are making advances in this category of product and it means competition for McAfee.  

I have been using this type of product from McAfee since about six years ago off and on.  

I think it is a stable product. It needs to be more robust in identifying threats.  

It is a scalable, of course, as it is designed for enterprise use. It is scalable unless you do not configure it correctly and try to work with it without knowing how to do it.  

We have been in touch with the McAfee technical support. They also struggled with a problem we had with an infected server. I was involved in the contact with McAfee at the time when trying to resolve the issue. Ultimately, they did not have any solution for the problem and we ended up rolling back the server. In all that is a bit of a problem with the product and the technical support. Neither were optimal.  

The installation and implementation are the easiest parts of using the product. The real difference comes in how you want to optimize the performance. That is the key. Otherwise, implementation is not challenging.  

By optimizing the performance, I mean that you should not change the function of the basic purpose of a security product. If it is a firewall implemented on the network, that product should be providing the service without excessive expense or resources in performance. We are looking at the cloud solutions in the same sense. There can be performance concerns for products on the cloud. It is a known factor.  

Then the second point is all about the features and configuration. The question is about configuration management using tools on the cloud platforms. You may be using multiple clouds. You have to be sure you can configure it so the product remains secure across platforms. Security solutions should also focus on providing that rather than forcing users on to different products and having to manage multiple solutions.  

The deployment for McAfee MVISION Endpoint, after everything has been considered and all of the points have been taken into account, takes some time. Say we have got around 3,000 to 10,000 servers. The type of configurations can be critical. If the client provides a rule-based requirement, we have to go with their requirements. Depending on what needs to be configured, this can take more or less time. Each of the servers will take a certain amount of time to do the implementation. So the time estimate for the implementation has to include the customer requirements. Analysis has to be completed for each unique need.  

The maintenance is looked after by the client. It should not take more than five to six team members, even if we have a client with 3,000 servers. That is the number of people that we would expect once the product is properly organized and implemented.  

That should not be considered just an eight-hour per day effort. It needs to be serviced around the clock because the servers do not sleep. Deployment of people to maintenance teams is important.  

With the installation complete, the configuration done, and the maintenance team in place, using the product is all about monitoring it. A lot of intrusion detection is getting automated now, but not everything will be. Someone has to take some time doing analytics with the logs.  

We try to configure the solution to sort out many things. We have to work with what the client is expecting and configure for that level of load and to get proper alerts. The configuration will probably be ongoing as a part of maintenance and review.  

MVISION is intended as an enterprise product and it is priced like one. That is what I can say about the pricing. Enterprise organizations will be able to make the expenditure and it will not be practical for most smaller organizations. This solution is within the price range of competitors at the enterprise level.  

We definitely evaluated other products and continue to. We have to put our case forward for justifying our products and solutions within our company and with our clients. It has been an experience with the POC. Whatever the product and features, the cost-benefit analysis has to be taken in terms of leaky security. That may not matter for certain situations and products, but from our testing and experience, it will definitely matter for this product right now.  

Our company has to make a decision about whether they have to switch to a different product internally. If we try to become a partner with a certain company and begin to resell that to other clients, we can get a better price in a negotiation. This may affect the product we end up using.  

We definitely need to explore a lot. In this case, it will take a lot of time to consider the benefits of various products and cost-benefits.  

My advice to people considering this solution is that they should take a look at it. As of now, that is all I can say. I was not focused on working with all of the products within this category and, after a long time, I am working with them again. Just these last three or four months, I am back into evaluating the security solution sets more rigorously.  

I am not biased at this point and have to leave the possibilities wide open in order to make a good recommendation.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate McAfee MVISION Endpoint as a five to six in a range of ten. The rating is not about the product being perfect, I am not rating it too high because the things that are missing are things that really should be a part of a superior endpoint solution already. They have so much to work on as of now with this product that it seems to be lagging behind. With their experience in the business, they should know these things are important. If you look into the other competing products of whatever brand, the competition has already released identity and access management. The new organizations in the category are coming into this field with all the latest innovations. As more of them do, they will create a challenge in the marketplace. McAfee is lagging a little behind and not moving quickly to keep up.  

We are a solution provider and McAfee MVISION Endpoint is one of the products that we implement for our clients. Our clients use it to help manage their security.

The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision. It allows for greater granularity.

Our clients use the VPN to create secure connections to their servers.

A policy-editing console should be added.

Having automatic updates would be helpful.

We have been dealing with this product for about two years.

We are completing two deployments each week and I don't have any comments with regards to stability. I would say that it's stable enough.

We have about 20 clients who are using this solution and it is easy to scale. I would estimate the number of users to be about 400.

McAfee has good support and they are very responsive.

We deal with endpoint solutions from several vendors including Sophos, Symantec, and CrowdStrike. We are still using Symantec in parallel with McAfee.

The capabilities of these products are similar and the real difference is in the support. McAfee has the best support nowadays, as Symantec takes too long to respond.

The initial setup sometimes has to be done manually because of issues with Active Directory. That said, it is not normally complex. Complexity can come from using export files because McAfee does not have a policy-editing console.

One of the recent deployments we completed required three of us 15 days. This including training people in different locations.

We implement and deploy this product for our clients.

Licensing fees are billed on a yearly basis.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are a reseller and McAfee is one of the security solutions that we implement for our customers.

The cloud-based security and data protection features are essential for the work from home set up, because of the pandemic.

Some of the most valuable features of this solution are the ePO, centralized management, single control, and ease of management. 

The agents are easy to deploy.

For McAfee, as long as you have ePO it is easy to manage.

It integrates well with other solutions and I like their CASB and the Web Gateway, their cloud security.  Most of our clients are migrating to the cloud and they are evaluating cloud security solutions and data protection.

Endpoint resource utilization causes high levels of instability and that is something that needs improvement. Our clients are concerned about how it can affect their endpoints and do not want the CPU overburdened.

I have been working with this solution for four years.

The stability is good.

This is a scalable solution. Most of our clients are enterprise-level companies with 10,000 users.

My personal experience with technical support is limited, but we have a good working relationship with them. In the four years that we have worked with McAfee, we have found that the people behind this product are easy to talk to. No matter how complex the problem is, they will help you to better understand it.

Overall, I feel that their support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward and it is easy to configure.

The pricing is mid-ranged and quite reasonable compared to other similar products.

Being a reseller, we handle many different endpoint products and have evaluated several of them. When comparing to Symantec, for example, McAfee is better in that they have multiple agents and multiple consoles. We also work with CrowdStrike and Cylance.

Some of our customers prefer McAfee because they started with an on-premises solution, which is a good thing. Not every company is cloud-ready, yet. Some of them have hybrid configurations, where they have on-premises protection as well as cloud-based protection.

Price-wise, McAfee is less expensive than CrowdStrike or Cylance, although not as cheap as Kaspersky or Sophos. I would say that it is reasonable, for the feature set.

We have been working with McAfee for four years and the sales and support have always been good. It is not difficult for us to handle McAfee because they have always worked well with us.

I think that this is a good option for people working from home because it is easy to implement and deploy the agents.

My recommendation for anybody who is implementing this product is to have VPN access set up, adding to the security, especially when working from home.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is broken down into different components from the portals. Web filtering, which is an added feature has been great for us. Other than that, we also make use of other products under McAfee, so it was DLP, HIPS, as well. Rogue Detection is more for detecting and managing systems on our network. That worked very well for us. From an interface point of view, it's really simple and straightforward.

On the next release, they should build an easier way to see a repair option within the McAfee icon on your system tray. If there was an issue, you should be able to contact the user or just right-click on "repair". That would be a very good feature to add. That could be a place of improvement, just adding that button, or customizing it.

We have good compliance. Compliance is using it at the moment, so we work 90% plus. It works well. It's being used on a daily basis and runs very well.

The solution is simple to scale. In South Africa, we have about 12 to 18,000 deployed and over 18,000 Endpoint users. We have two servers as well. 

Installation was a bit complicated right in the beginning. We obviously had to use a different extension and some of the policy had to be modified, changed or migrated across, but there were no other issues.

I've been using the Complete Endpoint Protection for maybe a year and a half, but the other half of the McAfee Suite, the McAfee Virus Enterprise, I've used since 2012 and then it migrated to McAfee Endpoint.

From a customer point of view what they need to look out for is just mainly some of the products that they use to make sure the exclusions are correct. The processes that they need to exclude, as well, are done correctly. It is mainly on the exclusions to ensure they don't have any impact.

I would rate this solution eight out of 10.