We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) and WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response 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."Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"It is stable and scalable."
"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."
"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 product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"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 product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"It's very stable and reliable."
"The most valuable network security feature is the network sandbox solution. This sandbox feature works on traffic flow."
"The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP."
"The threat scanning is excellent. It uses predictive technology and I can utilize attack data to help us fine-tune our systems and network infrastructure. This protects us against current and future attacks."
"We have a cloud-based instance, so we can deploy all our configurations through the cloud. That's the beauty of FireEye."
"The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities."
"It's good that it periodically scans all my drives. I can stay up to date with the status of my drivers and update them if needed."
"When you download the executable file from the internet, it automatically sandboxes to make sure it's not doing anything incorrectly."
"The interface is very good."
"I like WatchGuard's network segmentation features. It's easy to configure user policies."
"The tool provides automated responses."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation of logs from different devices."
"The basic functionality is fantastic. It has been performing well. I generated a report on one machine, using that as the deployment machine. When scanning the network, it discovered machines on the network and deployed the same endpoint protection from that one machine I have on my network."
"The most valuable feature, in my opinion, is the dimension logging platform and the network traffic filtering."
"WatchGuard is very user-friendly. It provides us with all of the security services we need."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"Detections could be improved."
"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."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux. We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap."
"One suggestion is they should reduce the constant notifications. Whenever I open my laptop, there are too many notifications from McAfee, and it gets annoying."
"The product could be flexible and offer better pricing."
"The way that signatures work when using this solution could be improved. They could be more user friendly. We would like the ability to select a client's signature from a menu or file share to save time."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
"There should be better integration between the ePolicy Orchestrator and FireEye console. The integration of both consoles should be better."
"The initial setup can be a bit complicated for those unfamiliar with the product."
"It has very good integrations. However, its integration with Palo Alto was not good, and they seem to be working on it at the backend. It is not very resource-hungry, but it can be even better in terms of resource utilization. It could be improved in terms of efficiency, memory sizing, and disk consumption by agents."
"The interface is not the best."
"The ease of detecting where an issue is should be improved."
"The website must provide more information on the product."
"WatchGuard should offer more visibility into user activity. For example, we should have more details when WatchGuard denies a user access to a port."
"The reporting isn't so good. If they worked to improve this aspect of the solution, it would be much stronger."
"When it comes to live-monitoring, the user-interface could be improved to make things easier."
"The administrative UI/UX could be significantly improved."
"The solution is a bit confusing and there are unusual complications with setup."
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 18th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 49 reviews while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is ranked 27th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 12 reviews. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6, while WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is rated 8.2. 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 WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response writes "Offers deployment simplicity, especially for firewalls and firewall configuration and good documentation available ". 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 WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Trend Vision One, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Huntress. See our Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) vs. WatchGuard Threat Detection and Response 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.