We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security and Forescout Platform 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. Forescout Platform stands out for its agentless visibility and advanced features like device fingerprinting. Trellix could improve by reducing resource usage, enhancing stability, and making the solution more user-friendly. Users say Forescout could be better at resolving connectivity and license issues. Users want better device compatibility and troubleshooting tools.
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 users reported positive experiences with Forescout support, but others requested better responsiveness and training.
Ease of Deployment: Setting up Trellix Endpoint Security is simple if the user has some expertise. Some users found Forescout’s setup to be simple and adaptable, while others perceived it as more complex and time-intensive.
Pricing: Trellix Endpoint Security’s pricing is considered flexible, competitive, and about average compared to other solutions. The total cost of Forescout Platform can be high depending on the level of customization and integration required.
ROI: Users reported saving time by implementing Trellix Endpoint Security. Forescout Platform yields a solid ROI by improving network access control and overall security.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Trellix Endpoint Security over Forescout Platform based on user feedback. Users like Trellix's comprehensive management abilities and single-pane-of-glass administration. It is praised for its reliability and low false positive rate. Forescout Platform receives mixed reviews for its complex setup process and customer service. It is also considered expensive.
"The most valuable features of Microsoft 365 Defender are the combination of all the capabilities and centralized management."
"Having a single pane of glass for all Microsoft security services makes everything much easier. A security analyst can go to a single portal and see everything in one view. The integration of everything into one portal is a huge benefit."
"Scanning, vulnerability reporting, and the dashboard are the most valuable features."
"It's a great threat intelligence source for us, providing alerts for things it detects on the network and on the machines. We've used it often when there is a potential incident to see what was done on a computer. That works quite nicely because you can see everything that the user has done..."
"The most valuable feature is the DLP because that's where we can have an added data protection layer and extend it not just to emails but to the documents that users are working on. We can make sure that sensitive data is tagged and flagged if unauthorized parties are using it."
"The ability to integrate and observe a more cohesive narrative across the products is crucial."
"The EDR and the way it automatically responds to ransomware and other attacks are valuable features."
"The integration between all the Defender products is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of Forescout Platform is that it has everything that Aruba has at significantly less cost."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of deployment, which does not require the use of an agent."
"The best parts of Forescout Platform are its orchestration features, discovery capabilities, classification buckets, and flexibility in creating policies."
"Forescout Platform is stable, it is great."
"I can integrate Forescout with products from multiple vendors in my environment, and also, the integration is searchable. It can be used with 802.1X and non-802.1X to integrate with my existing network. I don't need to upgrade any existing networks in my system, and I don't need to replace existing devices to integrate with Forescout. I find value in not having to spend money upgrading existing devices and networks."
"The user management has been very easy for the most part."
"The solution's implementation and operation are very easy."
"It has helped with improving our security posture in terms of controlling the access of rogue devices into our network through identification. We have been able to prevent rogue device activities on the network, check the health of the system, and ensure remediation."
"It provides a robust defense against cybersecurity threats while offering user-friendly features like notifications and approval prompts."
"Trellix Endpoint Security offers robust access protection, addressing major concerns in prevention. It provides both application control and user access control within its access protection features."
"Trellix Endpoint Security's dashboard is very flexible, and I can create my own user-specific dashboard depending on user privilege or preference."
"It has been protecting us for many years, and we hope it will continue to do so for many years to come."
"The initial setup is straightforward, not complex."
"When Intel acquired McAfee they worked on the protocol so that all vendors can work on the same platform. It's a very big improvement in McAfee. All McAfee products talk to each other. Other vendor's products can join this platform as well so it makes it more powerful on the enterprise side for McAfee."
"What I like best is the integrated end-to-end security that works with the security information and events manager."
"Automatic user recovery prior to Windows booting up."
"A simple dashboard without having to use MS Sentinel would be a welcome improvement."
"The web filtering solution needs to be improved because currently, it is very simple."
"It would be beneficial to have a more seamless experience with everything consolidated in one place, particularly when dealing with aspects related to the Exchange console."
"Offboarding latency should be reduced. Even after a device has been successfully offboarded using a particular offboarding script, it still shows up as onboarded."
"The capability to not only thwart attacks but also to adapt to evolving threats is crucial."
"The management features could be improved, particularly in terms of better integration with Intune, Microsoft's cloud-based management solution."
"Microsoft Defender XDR is not a full-fledged EDR or XDR."
"The design of the user interface could use some work. Sometimes it's hard to find the exact information you need."
"The ability to block external devices in Mac is lacking and needs to be added."
"Forescout Platform needs to improve how the device works in preventing rogue servers."
"The licensing costs are quite high. With the amount of hardware we have, we need too many licenses to make the product effective and it's ultimately just too costly."
"For the user, the policy that they have implemented sometimes needs adjustments. Sometimes the features that the customer asks for aren't involved in the main installation, and I need to bolt an add-on in. However, I never know if this policy is the right one when I do this."
"Forescout Platform sometimes returns false positives, so there's some fine-tuning to be done there."
"Forescout Platform could improve the integration or compatibility with other solutions, such as Chinese-made solutions. They do not have any integration with S33 which is a switch. They do not have good integration with new solutions in the market. They do integrate well with Rocket, Cisco, Juniper, and quite a few more but they could expand the integration."
"Forescout needs to upgrade its development in the future."
"Two things can be improved in the Forescout Platform. First of all, the support for some certain proprietary protocols from other vendors, but they are very widely used. If the TechEx from Cisco, was added to Forescout, then it will be a full solution for me."
"There are two main areas that require improvement. One is the size of the packages. Although I'll admit manageability is good, if I want to deploy, let's say just the antivirus or just the firewall, each of those package sizes are quite large. They are sometimes as big as 200MB or 250MB. When I have operations in remote areas where connectivity is always poor, it's difficult. To deploy such a package in a remote location over the internet or something like that is always challenging."
"It would be nice if the solution was a bit more stable."
"An area of improvement for this solution is to make it easier to manage."
"The local technical support could be better."
"The solution could provide open XDR in addition to EDR."
"The solution's technical support should be improved since we faced a lot of issues with the support. There were some delays in responses from the technical support."
"We’re facing remote installation issues sometimes:"
"The product is not easy to use."
Forescout Platform is ranked 12th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 69 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 96 reviews. Forescout Platform is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks and Qualys VMDR, 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 Forescout Platform vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) vendors.
We monitor all Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.