We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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 console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"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."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the IPS and the integration with ISE."
"It provides real-time visibility and control over endpoints, allowing its users to promptly respond to any security incidents and remediate any vulnerabilities."
"appreciate the File Trajectory feature, as it's excellent for an analyst or mobile analyst. I can track everything that happens on our server from my PC or device. Integration with SecureX is a welcome feature because it connects Cisco's integrated security portfolio with our complete infrastructure. Sandboxing is helpful, and integration with the Cisco environment is excellent as we use many of their products, and that's very valuable for us."
"The ability to detonate a particular problem in a sandbox environment and understand what the effects are, is helpful. We're trying, for example, to determine, when people send information in, if an attachment is legitimate or not. You just have to open it. If you can do that in a secure sandbox environment, that's an invaluable feature. What you would do otherwise would be very risky and tedious."
"The simplicity of use is its most valuable feature. You can very clearly see things."
"Its most valuable features are its scalability and advanced threat protection for customers."
"The best feature that we found most valuable, is actually the security product for the endpoint, formerly known as AMP. It has behavioral analytics, so you can be more proactive toward zero-day threats. I found that quite good."
"Among the most valuable features are the exclusions. And on the scalability side, we can integrate well with the SIEM orchestration engine and a number of applications that are proprietary or open source."
"Trellix has a user-friendly interface."
"The product provides a one-click recovery of encrypted files."
"Blocking browser navigation is a feature of the solution with which we have experienced success."
"This is a stable product."
"The most valuable feature I found in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the guided analytics or guided EDR investigation."
"If there is any malicious behavior in the workstation or server, the tool stops or isolates it automatically and generates alerts."
"The product is user-friendly."
"It is a scalable solution and very easy to use."
"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."
"The solution is not stable."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"The support needs improvement."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"It is an expensive solution."
"We don't have issues. We think that Cisco covers all of the security aspects on the market. They continue to innovate in the right way."
"One of the things that Cisco Secure Endpoint really needs is that it's not just Secure Endpoint, it's a point product, and I think we really need to move into solution-based selling, designing, and architecting. So that we're not worried about putting things on endpoints and selling 'x' amount of endpoints, but to provide a solution that covers all of the remote access and sell them as solutions that cover multiple things."
"In the next version of this solution, I would like to see the addition of local authentication."
"On the firewall level, they were lagging a little bit behind, but they are running up again. I have full trust in the new 3000 series of firewalls where we would also be able to look more into the traffic that we're monitoring and get more security layers in our services. That would definitely be a big step."
"This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports."
"The pricing policy could be more competitive, similar to Cisco's offerings."
"The connector updates are very easily done now, and that's improving. Previously, the connector had an issue, where almost every time it needed to be updated, it required a machine reboot. This was always a bit of an inconvenience and a bug. Because with a lot of software now, you don't need to do that and shouldn't need to be rebooting all the time."
"The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
"The main drawbacks are resources and processing time, as it consumes a lot of CPU and RAM."
"One of the issues about the product stems from the failure to work on its administrative scalability. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
"The solution's downside stems from the fact that Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and McAfee MVISION Endpoint are not combined into a single solution, so from an improvement perspective, they need to be combined into a single solution."
"For Spanish users, it is necessary to have a knowledge base specifically designed for them, which is currently not available."
"The technical support must be improved."
"The alert feature of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response needs improvement because for you to get the alerts, you have to log on to the portal. What my company needs is a tool that sends you alerts. For example, if it detects a threat on your machine, it should send you an alert. My company gets the alerts instead from the antivirus software rather than the EDR. If you want to see the alerts on McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, you have to connect to the system manually. Another area for improvement in the tool is the reporting. My company needs weekly and monthly reports about the alerts, but you can't extract reports from McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, so a decision was made to move to another EDR solution, particularly Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, next month. My company tested Microsoft Defender for Endpoint via a POC for one to three months. The resource usage of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is also an area for improvement because it consumes a lot of memory. For example, during the on-demand scan, you can't work because of the high CPU usage. You need to schedule the scans. McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response has a lot of modules, but my company doesn't use all modules."
"The graphical view for nodes must be increased."
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 45 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 22nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "Makes it possible to see a threat once and block it across all endpoints and your entire security platform". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) writes "Multifeatured, with web control, advanced threat protection, and threat prevention capabilities, but its alerting and reporting features need improvement". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.
