We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Endpoint and Trellix Endpoint Security 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."Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The stability is very good."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"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"
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"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."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"The most valuable feature at this moment is that Cisco AMP or Cisco Secure Endpoint solution is delivering a lot of things, and I always say to a lot of customers that if we didn't have Cisco AMP, we probably would have had ransomware somewhere. So, it's protecting us very well from a lot of hackers, malware, and especially ransomware."
"Its most valuable features are its scalability and advanced threat protection for customers."
"I'm only using the AMP (advanced malware protection) which is protecting my file system from all the malicious things that might happen. It should protect all kinds of things that might happen on the servers, things that I cannot see."
"It doesn't impact the devices. It is an agent-based solution, and we see no performance knock on cell phones. That was a big thing for us, especially in the mobile world. We don't see battery degradation like you do with other solutions which really drain the battery, as they're constantly doing things. That can shorten the useful life of a device."
"It is a very stable program."
"The solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features."
"There are no issues or drops in the solution's performance...The solution's technical support was helpful."
"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."
"Communication with all Mcafee products (also 3rd parties) by DXL infrastructure."
"The new central console is better than the earlier one."
"Dynamic Application Containment."
"The solution is stable."
"Some of McAfee Endpoint Security's main features are it has benefits over normal conventional antivirus solutions because it works much faster."
"Initially, the DLP was very valuable for disabling access to USB drives."
"The primary reason the solution is good is because of its ease-of-use."
"The endpoint security, antivirus and firewall are the most valuable features of Trellix Endpoint Security."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"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."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"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."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The reporting and analytics areas of the solution need to be improved."
"The pricing policy could be more competitive, similar to Cisco's offerings."
"The thing I hate the most, which they have not fixed, is when it creates duplicate entries within a console. If you have a computer and you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, or you upgrade your agent from version 6 to 7, it creates a new instance in there instead of updating the information. Instead of paying a license for one computer, I have to license two computers until I manually go in, search for all the duplicate entries, and clean them out myself."
"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."
"Logging could be better in terms of sending more logs to Cisco Firepower or Cisco ASA. That's an area where it could be made better."
"Integration and dashboard are areas with certain shortcomings in Cisco Secure Endpoint."
"We had a lot of noise at the beginning, and we had to turn it down based on exclusions, application whitelisting, and excluding unknown benign applications. Cisco should understand the need for continuous updates on the custom Cisco exclusions and the custom applications that come out-of-the-box with the AMP for Endpoints."
"The integration of the Cisco products for security could be better in the sense that not everything is integrated, and they aren't working together. In addition, not all products are multi-tenant, so you can't separate different customer environments from each other, which makes it a little bit hard for a managed service provider to deliver services to the customers."
"With McAfee, if there is a zero-day vulnerability, you have to download the patch for it from the McAfee website, then apply it to your endpoint."
"The software download features could stand improvement."
"The solution should provide a more easy way to uninstall it on specific stations."
"I think it would be nice if Dynamic Application Control would come together with McAfee Endpoint Security."
"Signatures to protect against new attacks."
"Although they have increased the complexity, it has affected the scanning speed."
"The local technical support could be better."
"It would be nice if the solution was a bit more stable."
Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 45 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.6, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. 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 Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon, Check Point Harmony Endpoint and ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, 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 SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Security 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.