We performed a comparison between McAfee MVISION Endpoint and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The solutions are similar, but differ in the features that they offer. Users of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint are happier with the price.
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"It's effective against most types of infection, and the firewall is perfect for protection."
"Technical support is good."
"The comprehensiveness of Microsoft threat-protection products is great... Today, Microsoft Sentinel by itself is a leading Gartner SIEM tool. It has advantages over competitors because of the ability to integrate with Microsoft solutions and automate continuous monitoring of Microsoft AD and Office 365 data."
"Auto-remediation: When the product sees malware, it resolves the issue immediately. This protects the machine."
"The folders and files protection are its most valuable features. These have been valuable because of the increase in ransomware attacks. With these two features, I can ensure that no changes have been made to our system or endpoint folders and files without the user being aware."
"The integration of Defender, Security Center, and the Microsoft compliance score, is the feature we use most to share the results with our clients and to create a roadmap together."
"It's very easy to scale because it comes built-in with Windows 10, and you just need to enable it. This can be done on scale using group policies or through Endpoint Manager on cloud or Intune."
"It depends on the licensing. Most of the customers have got at least a 365 E3 license, and they can use most of the features of Windows 10 Defender. So, anyone who has got an enterprise license can start using those features. Some of the customers have got E5 licenses, and they can use all advanced features. Customers with E5 licenses use the advanced site protection (ATP) features and web content filtering without going via a proxy, which gives the benefit of replacing the proxy. They can get the benefit of MCAS and integration with Intune and the endpoint manager. It is a kind of single platform for all 365 technologies. It helps customers in managing everything through a unified portal."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities."
"The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP."
"The stability has been great."
"The independent modules are very good."
"The performance is good."
"It is very valuable in finding out unknown malware."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"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."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"Detections could be improved."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint should have more transparency. In the latest edition of Windows, Windows 11, it is a compulsory requirement to connect to a Microsoft account, which in turn has implications for Defender. This should be removed."
"Defender could be more secure and stable."
"Lacks some additional integration."
"I would just like them to have more consistency, and that's a comment that's across the board with Microsoft. They change things a lot."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint does not offer default templates for alerts, requiring us to configure everything ourselves to avoid numerous false positives."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is not as robust, and you cannot customize it much, so that's a challenge."
"The solution can be more user-friendly."
"The system can always be simplified and have a better integration check. More detailed reports would be good. When it does the integrated check, it just shows if the system is okay but I want to know what happened."
"The central monitoring dashboard needs improvement."
"You do not have access to all the features when you use the Trellix web interface. For example, you cannot do device or drive encryption from the web interface. Also, when we're working with customers, it's sometimes challenging to get sales support. Delays mean we might lose an opportunity. Lastly, Trellix lacks some documentation about custom features."
"The product needs to reduce the usage of RAM and CPU."
"The solution lacks device control."
"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."
"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."
"The initial setup can be a bit complicated for those unfamiliar with the product."
"The solution can be expensive."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Microsoft Intune, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), Open EDR and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.