We performed a comparison between Elastic Security and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The feature that we have found the most valuable is scalability."
"I like that it's a SIEM platform. I like that I can sell Elastic Security quickly. Elastic Security has a large community that can support users."
"The visualization is very good."
"Elastic Security is very customizable, and the dashboards are very easy to build."
"The most valuable features are the speed, detail, and visualization. It has the latest standards."
"Enables monitoring of application performance and the ability to predict behaviors."
"Elastic Security is very easy to adapt."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to collect authentication information from service providers."
"The setup is not that complex. It takes five to ten minutes to set up."
"Technical support is excellent."
"FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others."
"It's very stable and reliable."
"We have a cloud-based instance, so we can deploy all our configurations through the cloud. That's the beauty of FireEye."
"MVISION Endpoint is so much easier and so much simpler for the lay security personnel to handle."
"The independent modules are very good."
"The platform’s most valuable features are ease of use, integration, and deployment."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The solution is not stable."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Email notification should be done the same way as Logentries does it."
"The interface could be more user friendly because it is sometimes hard to deal with."
"Sometimes, the solution isn't the easiest to use."
"There isn't really a very good user experience. You need a lot of training."
"Elastic Security can be a bit difficult to use if a person only has experience in SMBs with tools like Zoho. The product can also be difficult for those who have never dealt with query language."
"Elastic has one problem. In the past, Elastic Security was free. Now, they currently only offer the basic license or a certain period of time."
"Elastic Security's maintenance is hard and its scalability is a challenge. There are complications in scaling and upgrading. The solution needs to also provide periodic upgrade checks."
"Authentication is not a default in Kibana. We need to have another tool to have authentication and authorization. These two should be part of Kibana."
"They have something called Managed Detection and Response. They get intel from their customers, and that intel is shared with the rest of FireEye's customers. I want to subscribe to their intel, but that is not available to us."
"So far, McAfee MVISION Endpoint ticks off all of our boxes, but its pricing could always be better."
"The solution can be expensive."
"From an improvement perspective, I want everything in the solution to be free."
"The product is consolidating its portfolio into one product. It is difficult at the moment."
"I would like to see simple processing and reporting online."
"It has very good integrations. However, its integration with Palo Alto was not good, and they seem to be working on it at the backend. It is not very resource-hungry, but it can be even better in terms of resource utilization. It could be improved in terms of efficiency, memory sizing, and disk consumption by agents."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve by an overall simplification of the solution."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Elastic Security is ranked 16th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 59 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 49 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Trellix Active Response. See our Elastic Security vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.