Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

For some of our engagements, we have used MVISION, including data protection, threat intelligence, and DPP also.

We use McAfee MVISION primarily for endpoint protection, antivirus, and understanding the threat intel for end users. 

It is very stable.  

The independent modules are very good. 

For the most part, the setup and deployment are simple.

The only challenge we found is the integration with its product modules. It has a DPP. That integration, we felt, is slightly complex. The complexity of advanced modules can be improved. They could do some improvements so that it is easier to deploy the advanced modules.

We would like more in their advanced modules or ATP.

I've used the solution for a could of years.

The solution has been quite stable. It is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

I cannot comment on the scalability. I've never tried to scale the solution. 

For desktop support, they are pretty good. 

There are certain engagements where our customers are still using it. Now, however, we do see a common trend of people moving towards Defender service rather than using McAfee.

We also use Trend Micro. We would prefer Trend Micro and would rate Trend Micro top and then make McAfee next.

The basic modules are straightforward to set up. We don't see many challenges there. However, when we talk about going into advanced ATP modules, et cetera, we do see certain amounts of complexity.

I did not work on the implementation and cannot say how long exactly it took to deploy. Likely, it would take between three and six months.

We generally deal with annual licensing. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. Having used Trend Micro as well, I would rate Trend Micro higher. However, I would still choose this product as a second option.

When we recommend a product, we would recommend something based on the fit of the product and customer requirements. We worked with Defender, we worked with Trend Micro, and we worked with McAfee. All of them almost overlap in multiple use cases. That said, we do see the customer IT strategy and where they're going, and they are adopting Azure more. We know there are certain limitations in their landscape where there may be some old legacy systems, and in that case, then we would either switch back to McAfee or Trend Micro instead of Defender.

It serves as a comprehensive endpoint security solution that goes beyond traditional antivirus by incorporating features such as document scanning for sensitive information, approval workflows for document sharing, patch management, and advanced threat detection using AI and machine learning. It actively monitors various endpoints, including web interactions and email communications, to detect and prevent a wide range of attacks, even those that are not signature-based.

One of the standout features of this solution is its encryption capabilities and DLP functionality. It provides a robust defense against cybersecurity threats while offering user-friendly features like notifications and approval prompts. The encryption feature provides peace of mind in the event of a lost or stolen device, safeguarding sensitive conversations and data from unauthorized access. This level of protection significantly reduces the risk of extortion attempts or data breaches, making it a valuable asset for any organization. So far, I haven't experienced any security breaches or attacks.

I've encountered minor challenges related to encryption.

I have been using it for a year.

We have a user base of over one hundred individuals who use the software.

The decision to implement endpoint security software like Trellix is made at a company-wide level, involving discussions and agreements between various entities, including our parent company and potentially other subsidiaries like the one in Sweden. This decision isn't made independently by individual branches like Kenya; rather, it's coordinated and negotiated at a higher level.

I operate within a managed environment where the IT team handles the installation and setup of endpoint security software. Once installed, they provide me with the necessary details, such as login credentials and instructions for changing passwords. My role primarily involves using the machines provided to me, without needing to delve into the setup process.

Compared to the solutions, it helped us to save at least ten to twenty percent, if not more. 

I would emphasize its affordability rather than merely focusing on cheapness. It provides good value by striking a balance between cost-effectiveness and feature richness.

I would recommend conducting a proof of concept to explore the features firsthand. It's essential to understand what you currently have in place, as that will help determine whether the solution is the right fit for your needs. After that, ensure that the POC is conducted efficiently so that you can make an informed decision about whether to proceed with the solution or consider other options. Overall, , I would rate it an eight out of ten. It's a good solution that meets my needs satisfactorily.

In my company, we use Trellix Endpoint Security for its endpoint security capabilities. Wherever there is a need for someone to comply with ISMS, we deploy Trellix Endpoint Security over there and support them in maintaining it.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it allows our company to opt for single management for multiple products. The tool also supports DLP encryption or proxy can be managed by a single management console, which is a major advantage.

Trellix Endpoint Security doesn't support Mac devices. Trellix Endpoint Security doesn't offer full-fledged support for Linux.

In the future, I would like the product to support Mac and Linux.

When it comes to classification, Trellix has its own DLP solution. They do provide classification in Trellix Endpoint Security, but not at a full-fledged level. It would be good if Trellix Endpoint Security provided a full-fledged classification.

The solution's technical support should be improved since we faced a lot of issues with the support. There were some delays in responses from the technical support. Technical support also lacks in providing proper solutions to issues.

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Security for ten to twelve years. I use the solution's latest version. My company has a partnership with Trellix.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I rate the technical support below five out of ten.

Neutral

I have used different products in the past. Since we are a consultant, we have to work with multiple vendors.

The initial setup of Trellix Endpoint Security was straightforward.

The solution is deployed on the hybrid cloud. Trellix Endpoint Security provides its tool as a SaaS product.

The deployment process can be done in around two hours.

Our company has around 40 engineers to deploy and manage the maintenance of the product.

There are some extra expenses for using the product, in addition to licensing related to the maintenance of the product.

The product is good, but that doesn't matter if the support is not proper.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use provided the support is good. If the support is not good, our company will have to state both the pros and cons of the product to its potential users, after which the customer can choose it if they find the pros to be favorable.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The solution is used for drive encryption and as a policy orchestrator.

The endpoint security, antivirus and firewall are the most valuable features of Trellix Endpoint Security.

Trellix Endpoint Security is pretty hard to configure and maintain. You need to have a dedicated person for the solution. It is very complex when you want to change the data loss prevention and data leak prevention policies. It's quite hard to give some exceptions on specific computers. It's not very fast onboarding with the orchestrator.

The solution should provide a more easy way to uninstall it on specific stations.

I have been working with Trellix Endpoint Security for two years.

The solution’s stability is quite okay.

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security an eight or nine out of ten for stability.

Trellix Endpoint Security is a scalable solution. Around 200 users are using the solution in our organization.

Currently, the solution's initial setup on a new computer is quite simple. Although some time is needed to configure all the policies, especially for our needs, it is not too difficult.

The deployment takes one week internally and two days of professional help from a local vendor partner.

It is enough to have one administrator for the solution’s maintenance, but we do not have one full-time administrator. A dedicated person is needed for the maintenance and monitoring of the solution to take it to its full potential. The resources or computers needed to use the solution make it quite expensive. Especially if you put the drive encryption and don't have new computers, you will have to delete multiple files, which is quite a pain.

The solution was implemented by a local vendor partner.

We have seen a return on investment with Trellix Endpoint Security in terms of time.

Compared to Bitdefender, Trellix Endpoint Security is more expensive, but considering it comes with DLP, the solution's price is fine. The licensing cost for the solution is 20k a year for 400 users and 10k for 200 users. You don't have to pay additionally for the solution's maintenance.

The solution's effectiveness depends a lot on the stations that you want to install it on. I will not recommend Trellix Endpoint Security for people with a lot of small text files on the computer. The DLP solution is quite okay. It is not so easy to configure in terms of the computers and permission to allow USB devices on specific computers.

Overall, I rate Trellix Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a basic antivirus. It's for protection. We centralize the management of 50 computers. 

The solution offers us more security and less chance of getting a virus. So far, we have had no viruses. 

So far, the experience has been positive. 

The pricing is good. It is very reliable. 

It offers good centralized management.  

The solution is scalable.

It is stable. 

I found the initial setup to be easy. 

We'd like better UI on the management screen. It could be a bit simplified, which would make it easier to use. 

I've used the solution for a while. I've used it for two years so far. 

The solution has high stability. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. The solution has been reliable. 

The solution has a high level of scalability. It is easy to expand as needed. 

I've never used technical support at all. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. 

I also used Kaspersky. I used it for two years and then replaced it with McAfee. 

The setup was straightforward. I did not find the process to be complex at all. 

I have not measured any ROI at this time. 

The pricing is reasonable. I'd rate it nine out of ten. It is quite affordable. 

I am an end-user. 

I'm using the latest version of the solution. 

The pricing has been very useful so far. I'd rate it nine out of ten. 

We use Trellix Endpoint Security for pattern-based scanning. We use it on all our handsets. We also use it for behavior-based adaptive threat prevention; it's a solution that will recognize malicious behavior.

I like trap prevention DNS and threat prevention.

I would like to have the ability to have more control over the deployment in the next release. If you have this console in the cloud, you cannot make pilot groups for deploying the agents. We only have the current group. So, as soon as you inject the software, it will go directly into production, which doesn't work for us. We need to build up pilot groups slowly. We already requested to have this feature on the cloud, and we are still waiting.

I have been working with Trellix Endpoint Security for about 15 years.

Trellix Endpoint Security is mostly stable. I haven't had any false positives in the last few years.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give stability a nine.

Trellix Endpoint Security is very scalable. Our company has three users, but we have more than 3000 devices.

Technical support is good, and that's an important thing to have. They are very helpful and care about our needs. The best thing is that they speak German, and we can talk to them naturally in our language.

The initial setup is quite straightforward.

Trellix Endpoint Security is best suited for large companies. I would tell potential users to find an excellent partner to configure and build a basic policy setup. A third-level contact is also essential if it's not part of your daily responsibility. 

On a scale from to ten, I would give Trellix Endpoint Security a nine.

We primarily use the solution for managed defense. It is a next-generation EDR, similar to Cylance and CrowdStrike. It's used for endpoint enforcement. 

It offers more plugins for endpoints in order to extend endpoint protection. There are a variety of plugin options.

The extendability is great. 

It is pretty stable.

The product is very scalable.

We find the pricing to be in line with the current market.

The solution needs to work on memory consumption. It is too high. EDRs are notorious for this. 

Technical support could be improved a bit. They are doing a lot with the acquisition and rebranding, and things may take a while to settle. 

We've used the solution for 18 months. 

The solution is stable and reliable. It's just as stable as anything else on the market. This is a stable build. All of it does depend on the interaction with the Microsoft patches. Most of the time, the performance is quite good. 

The solution scales well and has a lot of device plugins. I'd rate it a ten out of ten. You can do all kinds of things with it that you can't do with other endpoint protection options. 

Technical support isn't ideal. It's not that it is awful; it's just not fantastic. 

I'm also familiar with Cylance and CrowdStrike, which I've used at a different company.

I wasn't involved with the initial setup. However, we have a top-notch implementation engineer. 

We had the vendor's assistance, and we've always had an excellent experience using them. 

I am not sure about the exact costs. However, my understanding is it is comparable to Crowdstrike. Like other solutions, the more endpoints you have, the less the cost. 

We're customers. We're an international conglomerate. They are our vendor, and they are partners with us on our security journey. 

I'd advise people to use Managed Defense. It pays for itself. 

I'd rate the solution a solid eight out of ten overall.

We primarily use the solution for endpoint security.

One of the strengths of McAfee in general, not only in the Endpoint, is the ePolicy orchestrator. It's a single management platform for all the solutions and also a single agent. From my experience, with all other products, it becomes easy to use with multiple deployments. 

With McAfee, what you do is you just upload and download some packages for specific features. For example, with endpoint security, you get only the four features, the firewall, web control, the ATP, and then threat prevention. Should the client would want an additional feature, for example, device control, full-blown DLP, or application control, then we can add the packages for that and then easily deploy it with the client. 

Looking at the current ePolicy orchestrator, and the transition of most vendors to the cloud, they need to do an improvement with the current dashboard or the overall aesthetic of their GUI. They need to just keep up with the current trends. It's still a bit old-looking. That said, with the CASB, their other solutions their cloud solutions, they're already on the way with that. They are working on improving things. 

The initial setup can be a bit difficult. 

They should offer further application control. The way of doing the application control is based on an inventory scan. It would be great and it would be at par with other solutions if they would be able to improve that into a category-based application control.

I've used the solution for about three years. 

McAfee is one of my favorites. It's very stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

We have been able to scale. For example, a client who wanted to migrate their on-premise solution and then move to the cloud found it to be pretty straightforward. With things like this, there is still room for improvement and there can be trouble doing that. However, with the experience that I had during the migration, it was pretty smooth and seamless.

I haven't had any experience with technical support. I'm working as a presales engineer, however, I have colleagues who've had a few experiences with McAfee technical support. Usually, it's all about clarifications around the licensing or loading of the license. For example, we have had experiences with the license already loaded to the client's account and we haven't received the email yet. When that happens, we have no way of accessing the account of the client. In those instances, we'd reach out to support. Beyond that, we don't really need help. 

I have experience with Trend Micro, Sophos, and McAfee.

The main difference is their single solution. There's one single pane of glass you're looking at which gets easier with the maintenance. The utilization is also great. It takes away the customer of having to deal with problems with the utilization. There's a balance between the performance of the agent as well as the operation of the client. You won't hear a client complaining that a McAfee solution.

The threat intelligence with respect to endpoint security is great too. With the threat intelligence and McAfee having been in the industry for so long, it has a better capability of protecting our endpoints.

For the setup, if you're not familiar with it, it can be a challenge. From my experience, when I just started working with McAfee, it was really hard to understand how the policies work, how the policies should be implemented and how would you assign them to certain groups. If you're just getting started, it's hard. However, if you're already familiar with how policy creation works and how you're supposed to assign it to certain groups or certain users, then it becomes easier over time.

For every 100 users, one person is enough in terms of handling maintenance tasks. Management is easy as you can manage everything from a single pane of glass. It doesn't require a lot of manpower. 

If you look from the Gartner perspective, and if we're only looking at the leaders' quadrant, McAfee is around five out of five in terms of price affordability. Among all other solutions, it has really a reasonable price. If you look at the entire Magic Quadrant, not only the leaders' quadrant, McAfee is even better. There are other solutions that have a more reasonable price, however, it also comes at the cost of the quality that we're offering.

I'm a reseller and solutions provider. 

It can be deployed in a virtualized environment or on the cloud. It depends on the client's requirements. I typically recommend the SaaS environment, however, in the Phillippines, it's mostly on-premises still. In that case, we may use a virtualized or physical server.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Trellix Endpoint Security for endpoint protection, including virus protection for desktops, laptops, and servers. The solution includes special dedicated modules, such as those for Microsoft SharePoint security.

Trellix Endpoint Security helps us support and secure a large number of endpoints efficiently. We have a lot of installations, supporting up to twenty thousand endpoints. With the central management system EPO, it has significantly improved our ability to manage security across these devices.

The EPO, the ePolicy Orchestrator, is the best endpoint protection central management system. 

Trellix Endpoint Security has a lot of special small modules that I like very much, such as access protection, adaptive threat prevention, exclusion capabilities, and logging capabilities. Together with disk encryption or file encryption, it provides a comprehensive solution.

The detection and response capabilities need to be improved. The product is not sharp enough in catching viruses, and we often have to use additional components alongside the pure endpoint security. Symantec, for example, might be better in this area.

We have been working with Trellix Endpoint Security for about 20 years.

The stability of the solution is very high, I'd rate it around eight or nine out of ten.

Scalability is high; I'd rate it 20 out of ten if possible.

Technical support is correct and absolutely helpful. We had some issues during the migration from McAfee to Trellix, particularly with account migrations, but generally, support has been good.

Positive

I have used Fortinet Endpoint Management, Symantec, Kaspersky, Check Point, and others. Among these, I find that the EPO system of Trellix is the best.

I like the initial setup very much because Trellix Endpoint Security has a lot of special small modules and configurations. It's flexible and allows for detailed customizations.

The pricing of the solution is correct and justified for the value it provides.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I'm working on a project for the Hong Kong library system under the Hong Kong government. They provide workstations in the library for citizens to access the Internet. The ENS needs to be installed on all the PCs in the library. Another part involves the CSWA for the server farm. They are upgrading the entire library system, including the rental system, book search, eBooks, multimedia, and other services. The CSWA modules are primarily for the backend servers, including Linux and Windows.

Detection and response functionality meet our requirements, but the support is poor.

HIPS protects server files from being modified or deleted by unauthorized users. It's primarily deployed in the web tier.

It is a bit technical. The user interface has some significant limitations, mainly when using HIPS on the server side, to protect files from being changed or deleted by hackers, users, or administrators. The UI only allows for the inclusion of files using wildcards. 

For example, it can protect an entire directory or a subdirectory, but it doesn't let you select specific files within a directory.

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) as an implementor for two years.

We haven't had any system crashes or problems in most cases. SolidCore is not compatible with some kernels, which is causing problems. Endpoint, HIPS, and anti-theft are working fine so far. 

I rate the solution’s stability as seven out of ten.

We use one ePO server to manage around four thousand endpoints, including servers. This single server effectively handles this load.

It is suitable for medium and large enterprises.

I rate the solution’s scalability as seven out of ten.

Support is poor. A module called Solidcore needs to match with the OS kernel in one area. The support for this module has been slow because it doesn't match the latest OS. As a result, we haven't been able to upgrade our OS because McAfee does not support the latest version. We've also encountered issues where the product can't be upgraded or installed successfully. We're managing over 300 servers and 3,000 workstations. Upgrading has been a nightmare with this setup.

It provides a slow response. Sometimes, getting feedback takes a few days, and that is also not to the point.

Positive

The initial setup is easy and straightforward. Determining specific modules and functions often involves a lot of trial and error. Deployment takes only a couple of days.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.