We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Trellix Endpoint Security users like the ePolicy Orchestrator, the solution’s robust central management console. Trellix could improve by reducing resource usage, enhancing stability, and making the solution more user-friendly. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is highly regarded for its automated processes, advanced threat analysis, and extensive security measures, including protection against ransomware and access controls. Microsoft Defender for Cloud could use enhancements in automation and ease of use.
Service and Support: Some users say Trellix support is helpful and responsive, while others believe there is room for improvement in communication and resolution times. Some Defender for Cloud users reported positive experiences with Microsoft, while others complained that the solution's outsourced support lacked technical knowledge.
Ease of Deployment: Setting up Trellix Endpoint Security is simple if the user has some expertise. The initial setup of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is described as straightforward, but the deployment time may vary depending on specific requirements.
Pricing: Trellix Endpoint Security’s pricing is considered flexible, competitive, and about average compared to other solutions. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is in the mid-to-high pricing tier. While some users find it expensive, others believe it offers good value.
ROI: Users reported saving time by implementing Trellix Endpoint Security. Microsoft Defender for Cloud streamlines security tasks and saves users money by consolidating various solutions.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Microsoft Defender for Cloud over Trellix Endpoint Security. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is praised for its automation and threat analysis capabilities. Users appreciate the convenience of managing everything from a single portal. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is generally considered cost-effective, while opinions of Trellix Endpoint Security's pricing are mixed, with some saying it is on the higher side.
"PingSafe's integration is smooth. They are highly customer-oriented, and the integration went well for us."
"PingSafe's most valuable feature is its unified console."
"The multi-cloud support is valuable. They are expanding to different clouds. It is not restricted to only AWS. It allows us to have different clouds on one platform."
"We really appreciate the Slack integration. When we have an incident, we get an instant notification. We also use Joe Sandbox, which Singularity can integrate with, so we can verify if a threat is legitimate."
"It's helped free up staff time so that they can work on other projects."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to gain deep visibility into the workloads inside containers."
"Cloud Native Security is user-friendly. Everything in the Cloud Native Security tool is straightforward, including detections, integration, reporting, etc. They are constantly improving their UI by adding plugins and other features."
"It is very straightforward. It is not complicated. For the information that it provides, it does a pretty good job."
"The most valuable feature is that it's intuitive. It's very intuitive."
"Microsoft Defender has a lot of features including regulatory compliance and attaching workbooks but the most valuable is the recommendations it provides for each and every resource when we open Microsoft Defender."
"DSPM is the most valuable feature."
"It has seamless integration with any of the services I mentioned, on Azure, such as IaaS platforms, virtual machines, applications, or databases, because it's an in-house product from Microsoft within the Azure ecosystem."
"Defender for Cloud is a plug-and-play solution that provides continuous posture management once enabled."
"It works seamlessly on the Azure platform because it's a Microsoft app. Its setup is similar, so if you already have a Microsoft account, it just flows into it."
"Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats."
"It's quite a good product. It helps to understand the infections and issues you are facing."
"The detection is great and the solution is constantly improving."
"The installation is pretty straightforward."
"What I like best is the integrated end-to-end security that works with the security information and events manager."
"The central management console is powerful. You can manage endpoints, DLP, encryption, and all the other features from a single console."
"The most valuable feature of Trellix Endpoint Security is containment, which takes less than a minute."
"We like the management of the ePO, and we like the management console."
"Tech support is responsive. They're good, the very best."
"The DLP and user interface are the most valuable feature."
"A beneficial improvement for PingSafe would be integration with Jira, allowing for a more streamlined ticketing system."
"We can customize security policies but lack auditing capabilities."
"Bugs need to be disclosed quickly."
"There's room for improvement in the graphic explorer."
"The categorization of the results from the vulnerability assessment could be improved."
"I used to work on AWS. At times, I would generate a normal bug in my system, and then I would check PingSafe. The alert used to come after about three and a half hours. It used to take that long to generate the alert about the vulnerability in my system. If a hacker attacks a system and PingSafe takes three to four hours to generate an alert, it will not be beneficial for the company. It would be helpful if we get the alert in five to ten minutes."
"When we request any changes, they must be reflected in the next update."
"When we get a new finding from PingSafe, I wish we could get an alert in the console, so we can work on it before we see it in the report. It would be very useful for the team that is actively working on the PingSafe platform, so we can close the issue the same day before it appears in the daily report."
"Customizing some of the compliance requirements based on individual needs seems like the biggest area of improvement. There should be an option to turn specific controls on and off based on how your solution is configured."
"For Kubernetes, I was using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). To see that whatever is getting deployed into AKS goes through the correct checks and balances in terms of affinities and other similar aspects and follows all the policies, we had to use a product called Stackrox. At a granular level, the built-in policies were good for Kubernetes, but to protect our containers from a coding point of view, we had to use a few other products. For example, from a programming point of view, we were using Checkmarx for static code analysis. For CIS compliance, there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, we had to use other plugins to see that the CIS benchmarks are compliant. There are CIS benchmarks for Kubernetes on AWS and GCP, but there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, Azure Security Center fell short from the regulatory compliance point of view, and we had to use one more product. We ended up with two different dashboards. We had Azure Security Center, and we had Stackrox that had its own dashboard. The operations team and the security team had to look at two dashboards, and they couldn't get an integrated piece. That's a drawback of Azure Security Center. Azure Security Center should provide APIs so that we can integrate its dashboard within other enterprise dashboards, such as the PowerBI dashboard. We couldn't get through these aspects, and we ended up giving Reader security permission to too many people, which was okay to some extent, but when we had to administer the users for the Stackrox portal and Azure Security Center, it became painful."
"From a compliance standpoint, they can include some more metrics and some specific compliances such as GDPR."
"No possibility to write or edit any capability."
"The product was a bit complex to set up earlier, however, it is a bit streamlined now."
"The initial setup is not actually so complex but it feels complex because there are many add-ons. There are many options and my team needs to be aware of all of these changes happening on the backend which is a distraction."
"The most significant areas for improvement are in the security of our identity and endpoints and the posture of the cloud environment. Better protection for our cloud users and cloud apps is always welcome."
"From my own perspective, they just need a product that is tailored to micro-segmentation so I can configure rules for multiple systems at once and manage it."
"It would be a lot easier if I could add multiple user accounts within a single device."
"The solution could provide open XDR in addition to EDR."
"I would like to see more integration with third-party products."
"Signatures to protect against new attacks."
"The tool could provide more advanced protection."
"The user interface could be improved by making it more user-friendly. There are multiple solutions and there is no clear line differentiating all of them. There is a centralized console where we manage everything but most of the administrators feel a little confused when it comes to managing multiple products from a single place."
"Patch management is unavailable"
"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."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 11th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.
