We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security and Microsoft Defender for Cloud 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. Trellix could improve by reducing resource usage, enhancing stability, and making the solution more user-friendly. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is highly regarded for its automated processes, advanced threat analysis, and extensive security measures, including protection against ransomware and access controls. Microsoft Defender for Cloud could use enhancements in automation and ease of use.
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 Defender for Cloud users reported positive experiences with Microsoft, while others complained that the solution's outsourced support lacked technical knowledge.
Ease of Deployment: Setting up Trellix Endpoint Security is simple if the user has some expertise. The initial setup of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is described as straightforward, but the deployment time may vary depending on specific requirements.
Pricing: Trellix Endpoint Security’s pricing is considered flexible, competitive, and about average compared to other solutions. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is in the mid-to-high pricing tier. While some users find it expensive, others believe it offers good value.
ROI: Users reported saving time by implementing Trellix Endpoint Security. Microsoft Defender for Cloud streamlines security tasks and saves users money by consolidating various solutions.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Microsoft Defender for Cloud over Trellix Endpoint Security. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is praised for its automation and threat analysis capabilities. Users appreciate the convenience of managing everything from a single portal. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is generally considered cost-effective, while opinions of Trellix Endpoint Security's pricing are mixed, with some saying it is on the higher side.
"When creating cloud infrastructure, Cloud Native Security evaluates the cloud security parameters and how they will impact the organization's risk. It lets us know whether our security parameter conforms to international industry standards. It alerts us about anything that increases our risk, so we can address those vulnerabilities and prevent attacks."
"Cloud Native Security helps us discover vulnerabilities in a cloud environment like open ports that allow people to attack our environment. If someone unintentionally opens a port, we are exposed. Cloud Native Security alerts us so we can remediate the problem. We can also automate it so that Cloud Native Security will fix it."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"It is pretty easy to integrate with this platform. When properly integrated, it monitors end-to-end."
"Support has been very helpful and provides regular feedback and help whenever needed. They've been very useful."
"We really appreciate the Slack integration. When we have an incident, we get an instant notification. We also use Joe Sandbox, which Singularity can integrate with, so we can verify if a threat is legitimate."
"Cloud Native Security is user-friendly. Everything in the Cloud Native Security tool is straightforward, including detections, integration, reporting, etc. They are constantly improving their UI by adding plugins and other features."
"PingSafe's most valuable feature is its unified console."
"Provides a very good view of the entire security setup of your organization."
"The most valuable features are ransomware protection and access controls. The solution has helped us secure some folders on our systems from unauthorized modifications."
"The main feature is the security posture assessment through the security score. I find that to be very helpful because it gives us guidance on what needs to be secured and recommendations on how to secure the workloads that have been onboarded."
"Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats."
"Everything is built into Azure, and if we go for cross-cloud development with Azure Arc, we can use most of the features. While it's possible to deploy and convert third-party applications, it is difficult to maintain, whereas Azure deployments to the cloud are always easier. Also, Microsoft is a big company, so they always provide enough support, and we trust the Microsoft brand."
"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."
"DSPM is the most valuable feature."
"Most importantly, it's an integrated solution. We not only have Defender for Cloud, but we also have Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Office 365, and Defender for Identity. It's an integrated, holistic solution."
"The product is fairly reliable."
"The detection is great and the solution is constantly improving."
"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."
"The manageability of the product itself is its most valuable aspect. You have the underlying EPO, and on top of it, you can deploy the various components as you require. This is unlike other solutions like Symantec where you have to deploy everything or nothing. With this solution, you can choose to only deploy antivirus or only deploy a firewall, or only something else. I choose the components and that deployment is done through EPO. It makes manageability very flexible."
"We receive good protection with this solution."
"The most valuable features of the solution include DLP (data loss prevention), CASB (cloud access security broker) functionality, endpoint encryption, and cloud workload security."
"It's easy to use and it's very powerful. It offers nice endpoint protection."
"The product helps us by contacting us if there are any virus attacks on our system."
"The categorization of the results from the vulnerability assessment could be improved."
"We are experiencing problems with Cloud Native Security reporting."
"After closing an alert in Cloud Native Security, it still shows as unresolved."
"I would like PingSafe's detections to be openly available online instead of only accessible through their portal. Other tools have detections that are openly available without going through the tool."
"There's an array of upcoming versions with numerous features to be incorporated into the roadmap. Customers particularly appreciate the service's emphasis on intensive security, especially the secret scanning aspect. During the proof of concept (POC) phase, the system is required to gather logs from the customer's environment. This process entails obtaining specific permissions, especially in terms of gateway access. While most permissions for POC are manageable, the need for various permissions may need improvement, especially in the context of security."
"In some cases, the rules are strictly enforced but do not align with real-world use cases."
"PingSafe can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"I would like additional integrations."
"From a compliance standpoint, they can include some more metrics and some specific compliances such as GDPR."
"Sometimes, it's very difficult to determine when I need Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a special resource group or certain kinds of products. That's not an issue directly with the product, though."
"We would like to have better transparency as to how the security score is calculated because as it is now, it is difficult to understand."
"The product was a bit complex to set up earlier, however, it is a bit streamlined now."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"The solution could extend its capabilities to other cloud providers. Right now, if you want to monitor a virtual machine on another cloud, you can do that. However, this cannot be done with other cloud platform services. I hope once that is available then Defender for Cloud will be a unified solution for all cloud platform services."
"If a customer is already using Okta as an SSO in its entire environment, they will want to continue with it. But Security Center doesn't understand that and keeps making recommendations. It would help if it let us resolve a recommendation, even if it is not implemented."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"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."
"The price of the solution is high in Asia."
"Technical support is an area that can be improved because sometimes, the response time is a bit slow and the explanation is short."
"The DAC (Dynamic Application Containment) component of this product needs improvement."
"Technical support from the vendor is very bad."
"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."
"Trying to move away from the signature model for antivirus and malware blocking is something that would be nice. Instead of having to update every day, which is signature-based, moving to more of a kernel or architecture-based model would probably be beneficial."
"I think it would be nice if Dynamic Application Control would come together with McAfee Endpoint Security."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Endpoint Security writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, 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 Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.
