Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Coro vs Trellix Endpoint Security Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Coro
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
54th
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
56th
Average Rating
0.0
Reviews Sentiment
3.1
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Email Security (54th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (68th)
Trellix Endpoint Security P...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
7th
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
10th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
159
Ranking in other categories
Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Coro is 0.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Endpoint Security Platform is 3.7%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Trellix Endpoint Security Platform3.7%
Coro0.5%
Other95.8%
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Vignesh  K - PeerSpot reviewer
Practice Engineer at Cloudunicorn.in
Auto scanning and enhanced security but re-adding protections need improvement
At that time, we observed certain issues with the product. The functionalities could be improved, such as the isolation feature. If we remove our protection, we cannot easily add it back. If, in our organization, we need to remove a specific system for a particular time, we cannot add it back for security after doing so. This is one thing we have experienced. Scalability is also lacking. If we want to do the same thing repeatedly, there's not much the solution offers; it isn't very strong.
Abhimanyu Das - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Associate at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Threat detection is effective, and the solution provides good control over device access, but it still needs better troubleshooting options for agent-related issues.
From an improvement perspective, I am looking for a way to troubleshoot situations where the endpoint agent becomes corrupted and requires reinstallation, as there is currently no option to resolve these issues without rebooting the system. I give it a rating of seven because, in today’s scenario, the portal is complicated to navigate. The Trellix Endpoint Security Platform dashboard is somewhat difficult to understand, and it takes considerable time to familiarize oneself with the tools and policies compared to other solutions. For on-premises deployment, I would also like to highlight that the architecture is quite complex, which is an area Trellix Endpoint Security Platform should consider improving.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The auto-scanning feature is quite beneficial."
"The auto-scanning feature is quite beneficial."
"It also allows multifunctionality within a single platform."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"It's quite easy to install agents."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"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."
"It has improved my organization because it helps with visibility, in terms of security. We can see the actual attack and can contain it. The antivirus can detect that."
"The user behavioral analysis feature is great."
"The most valuable feature is ease of use."
 

Cons

"The functionalities could be improved, such as the isolation feature."
"Scalability is lacking. If we want to do the same thing repeatedly, there's not much the solution offers; it isn't very strong."
"It can be quite complicated to learn McAfee Endpoint Security and to feel comfortable with the environment."
"The customization capabilities of the solution are an area where it lacks, so it would be great if our company could customize the solution to meet the demands of our customers."
"I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use."
"We'd like better UI on the management screen."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing. The price should be improved, it's high."
"I hope the solution can be used in cloud systems going forward."
"Impacts performance of the servers quite negatively."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The price of the solution is in the middle range compare to others and could be reduced. There are not any additional costs."
"Licensing fees are paid yearly."
"It is not so cheap in comparison to Sophos and other solutions."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"They should reduce the cost or make it free, open-source software."
"The initial price is very good as they give good initial discounts, but it seems a little expensive once you renew the license."
"McAfee's prices are flexible and can be quite competitive, although there are other solutions that are even more so."
"When comparing the solution to others it is a bit expensive. We are on a monthly license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Government
12%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business67
Midsize Enterprise36
Large Enterprise61
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Coro?
The cost is reasonable because it is aimed at SMB customers, not enterprise customers. The prices are reasonable. We received a demo license, so we tried it more extensively.
What needs improvement with Coro?
At that time, we observed certain issues with the product. The functionalities could be improved, such as the isolation feature. If we remove our protection, we cannot easily add it back. If, in ou...
What is your primary use case for Coro?
We have not sold the product to any customers as of now. We are still in the testing phase, which means we, along with our partners, are the current users.
How does McAfee Endpoint Security compare with MVISION?
The flexible manageability of McAfee Endpoint Security is one of our favorite aspects of this solution. You can deploy various components as desired with McAfee Endpoint Security, whereas many othe...
How does Crowdstrike Falcon compare with FireEye Endpoint Security?
The Crowdstrike Falcon program has a simple to use user interface, making it both an easy to use as well as an effective program. Its graphical design is such that it makes an extremely useful too...
What do you like most about McAfee Endpoint Security?
It provides a robust defense against cybersecurity threats while offering user-friendly features like notifications and approval prompts.
 

Also Known As

No data available
McAfee Endpoint Security, McAfee Endpoint Protection, Intel Security Total Protection for Endpoint, McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS)
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Lenovo, Dropbox, T-Systems
inHouseIT, Seagate Technology
Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, Microsoft, SentinelOne and others in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP). Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.