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

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs Trellix Endpoint Security Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 9, 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

Deep Instinct Prevention Pl...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
40th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (17th)
Trellix Endpoint Security P...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
158
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (10th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is 0.7%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Endpoint Security Platform is 3.8%, down from 4.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Elena Yau - PeerSpot reviewer
Prevention, in advance, saves us remediation time
We have a PHI (protected health information) committee, and some of the things that we review on a weekly basis are incidents. For example, if there was malware or adware or some kind of phishing attempt, or even ransomware, we would have to investigate and see if there was any PHI impact. We've seen small things because some kind of adware made its way through the browser from some malicious link, and it's really hard to prevent those. We're putting more levels of filtering around that. There are some product development ideas that we have been working on alongside the DI team, and they've been super helpful. There are definitely a lot more little areas of improvement for the interface. Also, we have talked with the DI team about adding the forensic piece, which is what we do a lot. That would be added value and they've just recently provided more individuals to think about the roadmap. That's part of their strategy and one of the good features that they want to bring on. Hopefully, they can bring that to fruition and that will ease our workflow a little bit more. The additional predictive and prevention capabilities in the 3.0 version, that don't require special rules and configuration, help our organization. The only caveat is that when things get done automatically, I would appreciate more logging of what's happening in the background, if it is doing some kind of intervention. If we need to do some forensics, we should be able to backtrack from the log that gets uploaded to our cloud instance and see, forensically, what the root cause was. We should be able to see what instigated that trigger by DI and what exactly was done. That's a missing piece. It does a good job of preventing, but then we don't know what were the symptoms of the prevention. Let's say that there was like a PowerShell block. We'll see an indicator on the dashboard and we'll look at the logs and investigate. Sometimes we find that the logs that are captured locally on the endpoint itself are not very thorough. We were coached through our training with DI that, when troubleshooting, the DI team would always ask for the logs from the endpoint. We know what we need to do to look at something. But the logging for DI doesn't capture everything. There are some things that are missing. When it comes to root-cause analysis, or kill-chain analysis, and figuring out exactly what happened, it's very hard to do that right now on the product. I have used Carbon Black before and they're pretty good with the forensic analysis. That does save some efforts of my one engineer and myself when we have to go through the PHI committee. Right now, with Di, that feels like a blind spot. Another area for development is making the license clean-up a little bit easier. We always have to manually uninstall agents. If there were some way to remove the licensing and do better license management on the platform, that would help my team as well.
Abdullah Al Hadi - PeerSpot reviewer
Customization capabilities allow clients to autonomously deploy policies
There are a few areas where Trellix Endpoint Security ( /categories/endpoint-protection-platform-epp ) can improve. Firstly, the high CPU utilization when agents are installed can negatively impact client systems. Another issue is with end-users outside the network, where the agent handler sometimes fails to deploy the product properly. Improvements are needed in forensic analytics to detect specific vulnerabilities. It would also help if detection specifics were identified more quickly and the problem-solving process accelerated, especially to meet larger clients' expectations.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product offers integration capabilities and is also easy to use."
"I really like the behavioral analysis feature, because it looks at all the different things, like arbitrary shellcode and reflective DLL. It looks at a lot of things that threat actors use as threat vectors to get into the environment."
"The most valuable features are the static/dynamic analyses. Deep Instinct's predictive model has very high accuracy and provides threat information for unknown malware, such as malware classification, static analysis information, and sandbox information."
"Deep Instinct complements the solutions we already have. You don't need to rip and replace any antivirus or endpoint that you have. It's easy to use and it's easy to have it side-by-side with other solutions. That makes it really easy to have an additional level of protection, rather than to hassle with doing solution migration."
"The CPU consumption is low compared to what I have been using in my current environment, which is Sophos. The footprint is a lot smaller, about a quarter of Sophos. It is very small."
"When we were looking at Carbon Black and Sophos, the prevention pieces weren't as strong when compared to DI, which is why we decided to go with DI... I would rather have a product that does the prevention up front and saves me the effort of having to wipe someone's workstation."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Deep Instinct’s prevention-first approach to stopping unknown ransomware and malware is the reason why we purchased the product. The pre-execution versus post-execution is a big piece for us where it is able to stop something before it even hits the box or desktop. That was one of the big reasons why we went with Deep Instinct."
"We really like the dashboard from Trellix and we've found that it's pretty informative."
"The solution is broken down into different components from the portals. Web filtering, which is an added feature has been great for us."
"Initially, the DLP was very valuable for disabling access to USB drives."
"McAfee EndPoint Security has a lot of good features that work well if they are implemented properly."
"The product is easy to use."
"It's good that it periodically scans all my drives. I can stay up to date with the status of my drivers and update them if needed."
"The solution provides dashboard control, so we can centrally monitor the entire status of our organization."
"It provides a robust defense against cybersecurity threats while offering user-friendly features like notifications and approval prompts."
 

Cons

"I am looking forward to them adding Linux in Q1 or Q2 of 2019, as this is often requested by my partners and customers. Currently, Deep Instinct only has Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS."
"If they can bring some additional, complementary solutions, like network scanning and the like, that will help. If they had some sort of a firewall which could help detect DDoS attacks and other things, it would be an improvement"
"Some features are too resource intensive."
"If the client is working remotely and doesn't have a VPN then the deployment is difficult to do."
"I think it's probably the administration, especially the administration platform, which could be improved in the solution. It's clunky and hard to navigate, especially for inexperienced technicians."
"The Management Console is not localized."
"Due to the nature of deep learning, it’s sometimes difficult to determine why the AI model has blocked a specific file, although this has improved over time."
"They have a manual, but it is not excessive."
"I hope the solution can be used in cloud systems going forward."
"An area in need of improvement involves the overview, which usually does not enable one to get the value in reports."
"Tech support is not as helpful as they were in the past."
"What needs improvement in Trellix Endpoint Security is the reduction of resource consumption by the scanning feature. There should be daily signature updates for protection."
"Sometimes, while installing the ePO, we were getting so many errors and I don't know why it happened."
"The initial setup isn't so easy. You need to know what you are doing."
"The product does not seem to be cloud-native and there are issues with automating it. Automation is not intuitive."
"Search feature could be made more user-friendly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is a little bit expensive but we are satisfied with DI's performance."
"Their pricing is very competitive. It is good, fair, and a lot cheaper than what we were doing with Cylance."
"One thing about their licensing program that I like is that just one covers the server as well as on the endpoint as well as mobile devices. There is no complexity in calculating how many SKUs I need for mobile, for laptop, for desktop, and for servers. It's very simple and that makes it much easier to budget."
"Its pricing is too high, but that is not because of the product. It is expensive because of the cost of the console. You need a console to control the whole thing, but the console is expensive. You have to split this cost among all possible users. Normally, to be able to make it economically attractive, you need at least 1,000 agents, PCs, or users. If you have a customer with 300 to 500 agents, PCs, or users, it becomes too pricey."
"If I include the false positive rate and the detection rate in the comparison, Deep Instinct is worth its price."
"There are no additional costs on the price, and our company has a support contract, which bundles in those services anyway."
"We are a nonprofit. The MSP had provides pretty decent nonprofit rates for us. This was one of the key factors that made us choose Deep Instinct over its competitors who were significantly more expensive."
"There is a need for customers of the product to pay towards the licensing costs of the tool."
"It is based on an annual subscription."
"The license costs are very reasonable, around 1,000 to 1,200 rupees per year."
"There is a one-year and a three-year license available for this solution, we are currently on a three-year license."
"Compared to Bitdefender, Trellix Endpoint Security is more expensive, but considering it comes with DLP, the solution's price is fine."
"The product pricing is high."
"The price of the solution is in the middle range compare to others and could be reduced. There are not any additional costs."
"For each computer that is connected to the server McAfee charges us for each computer based on our license agreement."
"There are some extra expenses for using the product, in addition to licensing related to the maintenance of the product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
856,807 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Educational Organization
31%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Deep Instinct?
The product offers integration capabilities and is also easy to use.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Deep Instinct?
There is a need for customers of the product to pay towards the licensing costs of the tool.
What needs improvement with Deep Instinct?
The solution's stability is good. If the tool was able to provide fine-tuning capabilities from the product's end depending on the environment of its user, then it would be a good improvement in th...
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

Information Not Available
inHouseIT, Seagate Technology
Find out what your peers are saying about Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs. Trellix Endpoint Security Platform and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
856,807 professionals have used our research since 2012.