We performed a comparison between Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response 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."Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"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."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"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 solution is efficient."
"The most valuable feature is the capability of the command used by the machine so that we see the kind of performance that is running."
"Immediately we can pick up the computers in the network if any malicious operation that is triggered."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"What I like most about Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is the support because the support is good. The solution is also easy to use, and it has a dashboard. Everything is good, and there's no problem with it."
"The initial setup was easy and straightforward."
"They do a very good job of providing multi-stage visualizations of malicious operations that immediately show all attack details across all devices and users. Since it is MalOp-centric model, you can see if there has been a similar operation across multiple machines. If it is the same thing appearing on multiple machines, you see all the machines and users affected in one screen."
"The initial setup process is straightforward."
"One valuable feature is Threat Prevention with the on-demand scan."
"This is a good solution for antivirus and malware protection."
"There is a new feature where you can set thresholds for all the CPU consumption allowing for no consumption on the servers when the scans happen. It is a separate plugin or addon, and if we have it on all the virtual machines it automatically checks the resources, and based on that, it will schedule the scans. That is something that I have not seen in other antivirus solutions, such as Symantec."
"It also allows multifunctionality within a single platform."
"I like trap prevention DNS and threat prevention."
"I feel McAfee Endpoint Security to be a good, mature product."
"Technical support is always available and very helpful."
"The product is fairly reliable."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"Reporting could be a bit more granular so that we had the ability to check regions and countries. I just noticed that, for instance, if I look at our servers, it's either "contained" or it's "not contained". I don't have the option, for instance, to look at countries. It only allows me to look at users as one big group."
"Ad hoc higher-level reporting to senior management can be improved or can be implemented. That's definitely an area of improvement that they need to focus on."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"It initially took some time to deploy."
"It should be more stable, and the sensor needs improvement in terms of connectivity."
"What needs to improve in Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and what I'd like to see in its next release is a centralized dashboard that allows you to view what is there, similar to what's on Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager: a beautiful display and reporting. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response has to start with the compliance, the homepage, etc. Everything should be there and should be customizable. The options should be there. The tool is very good currently, but visibility for IT administrators is lacking and needs to be worked on."
"Cybereason does not have sandbox functionality."
"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 solution needs to offer better local technical support."
"We’re facing remote installation issues sometimes:"
"It didn't work well for some of the use cases. We have different use cases for each entity. Their support is also not good and needs improvement."
"The platform needs improvement in terms of handling heavy databases."
"Every time we open a ticket with McAfee, their response differs and they are not consistent."
"The resolution time should be faster."
"The solution has problematic encryption, which needs reforming."
More Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is ranked 43rd in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 19 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 11th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response writes "It has helped us become more knowledgeable about our environment and aware of threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Darktrace, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Splunk Enterprise Security, 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 Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response 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.