Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is useful as an endpoint security software.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its dashboard.

The dashboard provided by the solution needs to be improved. 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.

In the future, I would like technical support for the solution and its UI to be more efficient.

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) for two years. I usually deal with a product's latest version. My company has a partnership with Trellix.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. The solution is mostly stable, but sometimes, there is a need to do some troubleshooting.

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

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Currently, I work with CrowdStrike since my company has a partnership with it. CrowdStrike is better than Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS). CrowdStrike offers functionalities like machine learning and DLP.

I have used the solution on the cloud and on-premises. Currently, the solution is deployed on the cloud services offered by Trellix, which I feel is a public cloud.

I don't think there are any extra expenses besides its licensing costs.

Maintenance of the solution is required, including some troubleshooting parts managed by five to six engineers in our company.

I recommend the solution to those planning to use it.

Not all solutions in the market are good, though I found Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) to be a good product.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

This is an anti-virus and firewall solution. We have over 5,000 users and we are customers of Trellix. 

Provides endpoint security protection against malware and the like.

Trellix tends to get in the way and really impacts the performance of the servers quite negatively.

We've been using this product for around 20 years.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup. 

I'd recommend that potential users of this solution look for something more modern, for a newer company providing innovative solutions. I rate this solution five out of 10. 

FireEye replaces our traditional antivirus solutions like Symantec and McAfee and covers multiple business use cases, including EDR. 

We have a cloud-based instance, so we can deploy all our configurations through the cloud. That's the beauty of FireEye.

Upgrading to new versions isn't easy and it can take a long time. Also, other solutions' tamper protection features are better than FireEye's. Clients should have access to our local information, but they shouldn't change settings on the system itself. 

I I have used FireEye for 10 months.

I rate Endpoint Security seven out of 10. There is room for improvement and development. 

FireEye is a cloud-based application, so it's easy to extend by purchasing more licenses. 

FireEye responds promptly, and their support has been excellent so far.

Deploying Endpoint Security is hassle-free. We uninstalled our legacy antivirus system and deployed FireEye. We created a package and deployed it across the servers manually. 

I rate FireEye Endpoint Security eight out of 10. Explore the solution and see what benefits it can offer your organization. I recommend FireEye depending on the customer's needs and use cases. 

We primarily use this solution as cover for mobile devices. I'm the manager of pre-sales and we are resellers and users of this solution. We are low-level partners of McAfee.

The solution provides good mobile device protection and it's great that it's on the cloud. The product is compatible and works for all platforms.

I'd like McAfee to include device control on MVISION. The solution currently lacks mobile device management. The cost of the solution is comparatively high and I'd like to see that reduced. 

I've been using MVISION for one year and working with McAfee solutions for the past 10 years. 

The solution is stable for threat protection. 

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is very good. They are very knowledgeable and also happy to help out. 

Positive

The initial setup is easy and very straightforward. 

There's a USD$1,500 supported annual subscription fee that includes maintenance for anywhere between 51 and 100 users. It's USD$30 per users which I think is quite expensive. 

It's important to be clear about your use case and environment before purchasing this solution. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We're using MVISION Endpoint for the protection of our endpoint devices.

What I like most about McAfee MVISION Endpoint is that it's very user-friendly. You do need some knowledge on how to navigate the portal, but as soon as you've gained that knowledge, navigation will no longer be an issue.

I have no complaints about McAfee MVISION Endpoint. For me, the product is perfect the way it is. It's great right now, and it's doing good as it is.

So far, McAfee MVISION Endpoint ticks off all of our boxes, but its pricing could always be better.

I started using MVISION Endpoint last year. It was preceded by the MVISION ePO.

McAfee MVISION Endpoint is a stable product.

McAfee MVISION Endpoint has no issues in terms of scalability. You just need money to make scaling up possible.

The support for McAfee MVISION Endpoint is okay. I have no complaints about it.

On a scale of one to five, where one is bad and five is good, I would rate support for the product as four out of five.

The initial setup for McAfee MVISION Endpoint is pretty easy.

We used a consultant for the deployment of McAfee MVISION Endpoint.

I don't have information on ROI from McAfee MVISION Endpoint because a separate unit takes care of those calculations.

Pricing for McAfee MVISION Endpoint is not very good, and I would rate its cost three out of five, though I won't be able to mention how much its actual price is.

There were other solutions in use, but that was before I joined my department, so I don't know which solutions were used before my company went with McAfee MVISION Endpoint.

I have some experience with McAfee MVISION Endpoint, and I'm currently using it. I can't remember the exact version of the solution which I'm using, but it's the latest version.

My company is a customer of McAfee MVISION Endpoint.

My company is a telco, so I don't have the exact user count, but it's surely more than a hundred. All roles within my company use the product, even people at the highest levels.

At the moment, there's no plan to increase usage of McAfee MVISION Endpoint within the company.

My advice for people looking into implementing McAfee MVISION Endpoint is to use the demo, roll it out within your organization, utilize its functionalities, and let it work for you.

In terms of rating, I'm giving McAfee MVISION Endpoint a solid eight because it does what's needed and it works, so no complaints.

MVISION offers decent protection.

The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release. 

I've been using MVISION for three years.

MVISION is stable.

MVISION is scalable. 

Setting up MVISION is easy.

We have an annual license and pay extra for support.

I rate McAfee MVISION Endpoint six out of 10. It's a good product, but not the best. I wouldn't recommend it to others because it's not secure enough. 

The solution enables me to monitor all my endpoints and ensure that our agents are reporting to the FireEye management server. That is key for allowing us to see any suspicious traffic coming in. I'm the delivery manager and we are customers of FireEye. 

I like the console and the GUI is user-friendly. One of the most important and critical features is containment. Suppose something gets infected and there's the possibility of it spreading laterally and causing a problem or compromising a network. FireEye has a feature that enables it to disconnect from a system network so that the infection doesn't spread. 

Even if an incident occurs at night when support teams are not available, the feature can contain the infection so that when the support teams get to work, they can carry out the remediation part and bring the system back to production.

I'd like to see the searches enhanced because when I hand over the product to someone without experience, it should be user-friendly to them as well. If the feature was enhanced, and the amount of data that comes in reduced, it would simplify the process for anyone. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable.

I haven't had any issues with scalability. 

The support is pretty good, we haven't had any problems. 

Neutral

We had a separate team implementing FireEye and there didn't seem to be any issues so I think deployment was relatively straightforward. 

I prefer FireEye to solutions like CrowdStrike, Carbon Black, and Trend Micro which are not as user-friendly. FireEye is also easier to integrate with the SIEM, so all the logs get pushed and there are no issues getting the device integrated with SIEM. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities.

The way that signatures work when using this solution could be improved. They could be more user friendly. We would like the ability to select a client's signature from a menu or file share to save time. 

FireEye allows three releases per day which are automated. If the automation fails for some reason, the release fails. FireEye does not allow manual releases. This is why we are moving away from using this solution. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

The customer service is good. 

Neutral

I have previously used Symantec at a different company. I think Symantec is the best solution overall. 

The initial setup was quite complex. It took three months for us to roll out the solution. 

The suitability of FireEye for a business depends on the business itself. 
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.