We performed a comparison between Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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."Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"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 setup is pretty simple."
"The stability is very good."
"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."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"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"
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"The endpoint protection is the solution's most valuable feature."
"The solution has exchange protection. It has a content control, device control, a firewall, and anti-malware as well. They are all quite valuable features for us."
"I like the simplicity of this solution and the fact that it saves us time. The deployment was really straightforward and useful and I am impressed by the anti-virus endpoint detection and response offered by this solution."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"The agents are easy to deploy."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"The most valuable feature is the integration between environments."
"MVISION Endpoint is so much easier and so much simpler for the lay security personnel to handle."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"It is easy to use, flexible, and stable. Because it is a cloud-based solution and it integrates all endpoints of the cloud, we can do an IOC-based search. It can search the entire enterprise and tell us the endpoints that are possibly compromised."
"The independent modules are very good."
"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."
"Detections could be improved."
"The solution is not stable."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The support needs improvement."
"There needs to be better integration with the environment. Especially, for the active directory and also for keeping up with the changes from Microsoft. We use a lot of Microsoft OS. I have noted that sometimes they lag behind Microsoft updates. For example, when with Windows 10. I had some issues with deploying to Windows 10 because the solution was behind in updating their own services to match the Microsoft release."
"The database needs improvement. It needs to be updated quite a bit."
"There are blurred lines between anti-virus and endpoint detection so I would say it can be confusing when you are considering buying this program. I would like to see that being explained better to the customer."
"The integration and display of the dashboards have to be done better."
"The product needs to reduce the usage of RAM and CPU."
"The complexity of advanced modules can be improved."
"The solution needs to work on memory consumption. It is too high."
"The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release."
"Intrusion detection and intervention seem to be falling behind the competition."
"From an improvement perspective, I want everything in the solution to be free."
"Endpoint resource utilization causes high levels of instability and that is something that needs improvement."
More Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection is ranked 61st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews. Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection is rated 7.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection writes "An excellent endpoint protection that's scalable and reasonably priced". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection is most compared with Advanced SystemCare Ultimate, VMware Carbon Black Endpoint and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, whereas 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. See our Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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.