We performed a comparison between Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and Trellix Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is commended for its extensive cross-platform protection, user-friendly interface, and compatibility with third-party software. Trellix Endpoint Security is highly valued for its easy administration options and reliability. Kaspersky users requested improvements in security and stability. They also want better documentation, faster malware scanning, enhanced encryption, and improved remote management. Reviews suggest that Trellix could reduce resource consumption and improve user-friendliness.
Service and Support: Users say that Kaspersky’s support is helpful and responsive, whether it comes from resellers, partners, or the vendor. Some users have found the support for Trellix Endpoint Security helpful and reliable, while others have encountered ineffective assistance and communication problems.
Ease of Deployment: Some reported that Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is straightforward to setup, while others find it more complex and time-consuming. The setup process for Trellix Endpoint Security varies in difficulty, depending on the user's experience with McAfee and general technical expertise.
Pricing: Users gave mixed feedback on the price of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. Some found it reasonable while others thought it was expensive. Some find Trellix’s price reasonable and competitive, while others believe it could be lowered.
ROI: Our reviewers said that Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business has proven to be a solid investment. Trellix Endpoint Security provides significant time savings.
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"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."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"I have found the security, device, web and application controls to be the most valuable features."
"It has improved our performance and deployment."
"It offers very good security protection."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business's most valuable feature is the ease of management."
"The most valuable feature is the central view. With this view, I can see all of the data."
"The tool's interface is good."
"It performs quite well as a firewall protection provider."
"The most valuable features for us include data security, as well as web browsing and password management security measures."
"It's easy to use and it's very powerful. It offers nice endpoint protection."
"The endpoint security, antivirus and firewall are the most valuable features of Trellix Endpoint Security."
"This is a good solution for antivirus and malware protection."
"The initial setup is straightforward, not complex."
"It is a stable solution...The solution's technical support is good."
"Threat prevention is valuable because most clients use other solutions like antivirus as part of web protection. I don't find that kind of solution useful."
"The most valuable feature is the centralized console where everything can be controlled by the administration."
"I feel McAfee Endpoint Security to be a good, mature product."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"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."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"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."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"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."
"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."
"I think it would be good for them to consider and cloud integration capabilities."
"This product could be improved by integration with Linux. The one limitation this product has is that it's not compatible with and doesn't offer protection for Linux servers. It could also be easier to configure."
"This solution used a lot of memory and GPU; it would be nice if this could be reduced."
"The reporting portion of the solution is quite weak."
"We find that the solution uses up too much RAM and can slow down machines."
"I would like to see the inclusion of support for device management and device control."
"It's very heavy and it affects the computer's performance."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The local technical support could be better."
"Tech support is not as helpful as they were in the past."
"The solution should provide a more easy way to uninstall it on specific stations."
"Although they have increased the complexity, it has affected the scanning speed."
"When it runs in the background of the endpoint, the devices get slowed down for some applications."
"Recently, Trellix has introduced a CDR, which involves more manual response than automatic. I believe they should enhance the system by adding features like automated response and the ability to create custom playbooks. This is crucial for an EDR solution, and currently, Trellix lacks this feature while other products offer it."
"They can make it free, but that's not going to happen."
"The solution consumes a lot of end user memory and CPU. Trellix doesn't really focus much on the anti-malware side."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 111 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 11th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Trend Vision One Endpoint 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 Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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.