We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) and Trend Micro Smart Protection based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"This is stable and scalable."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Trellix integrates well with most SIEM and data classification solutions."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its simplicity."
"Trellix Endpoint Security has a full suite of DLP."
"The most valuable feature is the integration between environments."
"It's very stable and reliable."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"The agents are easy to deploy."
"A great console with a user-friendly GUI."
"The most valuable features of the solution are ransomware protection, device control, and DLP."
"The most useful feature is endpoint security."
"One of the most valuable features of Trend Micro Smart Protection is the integration with other solutions."
"The solution has multiple modules within a single agent deployment."
"The tool will query the information from the cloud to identify suspicious or malicious files that can be a threat. It will provide you with real-time updates on the latest and ongoing attacks and malware information."
"The administration through the cloud is valuable."
"It is a stable solution."
"Smart Protection is great for monitoring traffic, particularly email, and protecting the endpoints. Both are valuable."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The initial setup can be a bit complicated for those unfamiliar with the product."
"The performance could be better. I noticed that it slows down a bit."
"I would like to see more automation."
"The price of McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve."
"The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release."
"Performance is a problematic area in the solution needing improvement."
"The solution can be expensive."
"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."
"The pricing of the solution can be improved."
"I cannot recall noticing any missing features."
"The solution's device control options are not too beneficial."
"I've not explored all of the features up to now. I still need to see all of the features implemented first to be able to see if anything is missing. However, as of right now, it's working very well for us."
"The administration could be better. They could decrease the administrative burden and enable easier management. There are many features, options, and settings which is quite challenging for some of our customers. The complexity of the interface is also an issue. From a software point of view, I would prefer to see actual signatures and actual protection patterns, rather than new features."
"This product would be improved if it had more monitoring capabilities so that it could stop threats before they break into the network and damage it."
"In the next release, I would like to see a combination of the different features from Apex One and OfficeScan in Trend Micro Smart, rather than as upgraded features."
"The only drawback to this solution is that it needs different products for different types of clients, and it would be better to have a single agent for all of the products."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 50 reviews while Trend Micro Smart Protection is ranked 30th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 41 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6, while Trend Micro Smart Protection is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trend Micro Smart Protection writes "Offers strong, all-around cybersecurity but is expensive". Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Open EDR, whereas Trend Micro Smart Protection is most compared with Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, Check Point Harmony Endpoint, HP Wolf Security and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) vs. Trend Micro Smart Protection report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.