Lumu vs Trellix Network Detection and Response comparison

Lumu Technologies and Trellix are both solutions in the Network Detection and Response (NDR) category. Lumu Technologies is ranked #6 with an average rating of 9.0, while Trellix is ranked #10 with an average rating of 7.6. Lumu Technologies holds a 3.7% mindshare in NDaR, compared to Trellix’s 2.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Lumu Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 97% of Trellix users who would recommend it.

Lumu

Read 8 Lumu reviews

974 Views
102 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Trellix Network Detection a...

Read 39 Trellix Network Detection and Response reviews

603 Views
111 Comparison Views

97% willing to recommend

Lumu

Trellix Network Detection a...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 6, 2024

Trellix Network Detection and Response and Lumu compete in the network security category, focusing on advanced threat detection and response. Trellix leads with integration and network coverage, while Lumu holds an advantage in cost-effectiveness and streamlined implementation.

Features: Trellix Network Detection and Response offers robust threat analysis with seamless IT infrastructure integration, providing comprehensive network visibility. It supports deep analysis for malicious software, increased attack response, and multiple integrations with other cybersecurity tools. Lumu differentiates itself with continuous compromise assessment and quick delivery of actionable intelligence, emphasizing a simplified user interface, automated response, and the ability to integrate as a complementary tool with existing systems.

Room for Improvement: Trellix could improve its real-time response speed and further simplify its complex integration process for users without extensive technical knowledge. Its alert system could be refined to reduce unnecessary notifications. A more flexible pricing model could also be beneficial. Lumu might enhance its threat visibility prior to alarms going up and could expand its feature set to include deeper incident analysis. More customization options in alert configurations would be useful. Expanding direct integrations with additional third-party tools could also strengthen its offering.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Trellix provides a flexible deployment model, well-suited for complex environments, with extensive backend support and dedicated service resources. Lumu is favored for quick setup, straightforward deployment, efficient onboarding, and responsive support, catering to businesses that seek simplicity and reduced resource investment in deployment procedures.

Pricing and ROI: Trellix generally involves higher initial costs with longer ROI realization, favorable for large enterprises with expansive networks. Lumu requires lower setup costs and offers a quicker ROI path, making it a budget-friendly solution without compromising value. This strategy suits businesses focusing on cost-effectiveness and a speedy ROI, presenting a significant advantage in competitive pricing dynamics.

To learn more, read our detailed Lumu vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Lumu vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 860,168 peers since 2012

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

Lumu

Ranking in Network Detection and Response (NDR)

6th

Average Rating

9.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) (11th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (17th)

Trellix Network Detection a...

Ranking in Network Detection and Response (NDR)

10th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (12th)

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Network Detection and Response (NDR) category, the mindshare of Lumu is 3.7%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Network Detection and Response is 2.3%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Network Detection and Response (NDR)

Featured Reviews

Juan Solano

IT Director at Atlantic Quantum Innovations

Protects against threats and handles it in time with moderate pricing

Mostly, Lumu is an automatic tool. We'll deploy on firewalls and DNS servers. Lumu detects every attack on our network. The other day, we had CLC, the command controller, and the tool reacted automatically. It detected the attack and immediately blocked it without intervention from my team. The improvement is in the security process, as it's now entirely automated. We no longer require a technician or engineer to monitor our network 24/7. Lumu updates with AI and global threat intelligence, which greatly assists us. Since our workload is lighter, Lumu handles all of our tasks. We're using FortiGate for the firewall and Kaspersky for endpoints. If you are going to Lumu, you need another solution for the endpoint. You need to integrate with other tools like firewalls or another antivirus. I recommend the solution based on the price, usability, and service offered by the solution. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Read full review

BiswabhanuPanda

Senior technical consultant at Hitachi Systems Micro Clinic

Offers in-depth investigation capabilities, integrates well and smoothly transitioned from a lower-capacity appliance to a higher one

The in-depth investigation capabilities are a major advantage. When the system flags something as malicious, it provides a packet capture of that activity within the environment. That helps my team quickly identify additional context that most other tools wouldn't offer – like source IP or base64 encoded data. We can also see DNS requests and other details that aren't readily available in solutions like Check Point or others that we've tried. The detection itself is solid, and their sandboxing is powerful. There's a learning curve – you need a strong grasp of OS-level changes, process forking, registry changes, and the potential impact of those. But with that knowledge, the level of information Trellix provides is far greater than what we've seen elsewhere. The real-time response capability of Trellix has been quite effective, although it's not very fast. The key is this solution's concept of 'preference zero.' They don't immediately act on a zero-day. For example, the solution has seen a piece of malware for the first time. It'll let it in, then do sandboxing. Maybe after four or five minutes, it identifies that specific file's DNX Secure Store as malicious. At that point, they update the static analysis engine, and it gets detected if anything else tries to download the same file. There is that initial 'preference zero' concept, like with Panda. You may not hold traffic in the network. That's standard in the industry; we don't do much about it. To address that, we also have endpoint solutions. We use SentinelOne in our environment, which helps us identify threats like Western Bureaus and others.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The tool's support team helps partners resolve any problems with the product."

"The context provided by the tool is very complete, it includes the miter matrix, playbooks, links, hashes, and much more."

"You can access external links, playbooks, MITRE Matrix, and a lot of information."

"I like Lumu's simple user interface. When we deployed it, we got full access, allowing us to identify IP addresses on the network and connect machine names to users. It helped us identify and block threats via the firewall. I also appreciate the chat support and ticket closure process. We're currently reviewing network detection solutions, and my recommendations include Lumu, Sentinel, and a few others. Regarding functionality and user-friendliness, I would recommend Lumu over the others."

"Most of it is automated, so I do not have to watch it to get alerts."

"It's been helpful for overall extended network visibility."

"Lumu protects against threats immediately and handles them in time."

"The automated response to incidents works effectively out of the box, and the number of interfaces and platforms it can work with is impressive."

"The most valuable feature is the view into the application."

"The sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design."

"The most valuable feature is the network security module."

"The features that I find most valuable are the MIR (Mandiant Incident Response) for checks on our inbound security."

"Application categorization is the most valuable feature for us. Application filtering is very interesting because other products don't give you full application filtering capabilities."

"It protects from signature-based attacks and signature-less attacks. The sandboxing technology, invented by FireEye, is very valuable. Our customers go for FireEye because of the sandboxing feature. When there is a threat or any malicious activity with a signature, it can be blocked by IPS. However, attacks that do not have any signatures and are very new can only be blocked by using the sandboxing feature, which is available only in FireEye. So, FireEye has both engines. It has an IPS engine and a sandbox engine, which is the best part. You can get complete network protection by using FireEye."

"Trellix NDR provides an essential defense by automatically responding to network incidents that firewalls may not catch."

"The installation phase was easy."

More Trellix Network Detection and Response pros

Cons

"Nothing so far needs to be improved."

"The integration with different vendors and endpoints could be improved."

"The free version is minimal compared to the full version."

"Lumu's ability to discover threats is an area of concern where improvements are needed."

"I am happy with the current features. However, one important one is to improve the reports."

"It would be good if we could access the physical logs."

"Having a larger support network would be beneficial. Nobody I know has heard of Lumu, so they are in the same space as Darktrace or CrowdStrike, but people give blank stares."

"The reports need improvement."

"Technical support needs improvement as sometimes engineers are not available promptly, especially during high-severity incidents."

"Based on what we deployed, they should emphasize the application filtering and the web center. We need to look deeper into the SSM inspection. If we get the full solution with that module, we don't need to get the SSM database from another supplier."

"There is a lot of room for Improvement in the offering, from cost to functionality. It is pretty straightforward to implement which is an advantage. However, it falls short in pricing, detection capabilities, and, most importantly, reporting and policy management."

"It would be great if we could create granular reports based on the protocols, types of attacks, regions of attack, etc. Also we would like to easily be able to add exceptions to rules in cases of false positives."

"The problem with FireEye is that they don't allow VM or sandbox customization. The user doesn't have control of the VMs that are inside the box. It comes from the vendor as-is. Some users like to have control of it. Like what type of Windows and what type of applications and they have zero control over this."

"It would be a good idea if we could get an option to block based upon the content of an email, or the content of a file attachment."

"It is an expensive solution."

"Its documentation can be improved. The main problem that I see with FireEye is the documentation. We are an official distributor and partner of FireEye, and we have access to complete documentation about how to configure or implement this technology, but for customers, very limited documentation is available openly. This is the area in which FireEye should evolve. All documents should be easily available for everyone."

More Trellix Network Detection and Response cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is the cheapest solution we found."

"The tool is available at a good price. The tool offers a good and competitive price for customers."

"Compared to Lumu, other solutions are more expensive. SentinelOne was a bit cheaper, and another provider's price structure is unclear, but Lumu fit our budget nicely. SentinelOne's cost depends on the number of devices, and it might be similar to Lumu's, depending on deployment."

"The pricing is fair, a little expensive, but fair. We've evaluated other products, and they're similarly priced."

"The tool is a bit pricey."

"Pricing and licensing are reasonable compared to competitors."

"There are some additional services that I understand the vendor provides, but our approach was to package all of the features that we were looking to use into the product."

"FireEye is comparable to other products, such as HX, but seems expensive. It may cause us to look at other products in the market."

"The pricing is a little high."

"It's an expensive solution."

"When you purchase FireEye Network Security NX, will need to purchase a megabit per second package. You must know your needs from day one."

More Trellix Network Detection and Response pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Detection and Response (NDR) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Educational Organization

12%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Insurance Company

Financial Services Firm

13%

Comms Service Provider

11%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

10%

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Lumu?

Lumu protects against threats immediately and handles them in time.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Lumu?

There is always room for improvement. I am not giving it a perfect score because I am sure there is something that could be enhanced.Having some sort of certification or training, along with more p...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Lumu?

We use it as our managed SOC instead of contracting with an MSP. It coordinates endpoint and gives us a single pane of glass for our security events.It fulfills the role of a SIEM, serving as our d...

See all answers

What do you like most about FireEye Network Security?

We wanted to cross-reference that activity with the network traffic just to be sure there was no lateral movement. With Trellix, we easily confirmed that there was no lateral network involvement an...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for FireEye Network Security?

While I do not handle pricing directly, it is known that there is a variety of customers with different licensing needs, which depends on the organization's size and policy.

See all answers

What needs improvement with FireEye Network Security?

The Trellix solution could be improved by enhancing the Central Management Console for faster visibility, which would help in network detection response. Networking often involves complexity that c...

See all answers

Comparisons

Darktrace vs Lumu

Compared 52% of the time

Wazuh vs Lumu

Compared 11% of the time

Stellar Cyber Open XDR vs Lumu

Compared 10% of the time

Vectra AI vs Lumu

Compared 9% of the time

Fortinet FortiGate IPS vs Lumu

Compared 5% of the time

More Lumu Competitors

Palo Alto Networks WildFire vs Trellix Network Detection and Response

Compared 14% of the time

Fortinet FortiSandbox vs Trellix Network Detection and Response

Compared 11% of the time

Trend Micro Deep Discovery vs Trellix Network Detection and Response

Compared 8% of the time

Darktrace vs Trellix Network Detection and Response

Compared 7% of the time

Vectra AI vs Trellix Network Detection and Response

Compared 6% of the time

More Trellix Network Detection and Response Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Lumu

June 2025

Download Lumu product report

Buyer's Guide

Trellix Network Detection and Response

June 2025

Trellix Network Detection and Response report

Download Trellix Network Detection and Response product report

Also Known As

No data available

FireEye Network Security, FireEye

Overview

Lumu Technologies is a cyber-security company that illuminates threats, attacks, and adversaries affecting enterprises worldwide. Using actionable intelligence, Lumu provides a radical way to secure networks by enhancing and augmenting existing defense capabilities established over the past 25 years.

Lumu Technologies

Detect the undetectable and stop evasive attacks. Trellix Network Detection and Response (NDR) helps your team focus on real attacks, contain intrusions with speed and intelligence, and eliminate your cybersecurity weak points.

Trellix

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

FFRDC, Finansbank, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Investis, Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, Bank of Thailand, City of Miramar, Citizens National Bank, D-Wave Systems

Buyer's Guide

Lumu vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response

June 2025

Free Report: Lumu vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response

Find out what your peers are saying about Lumu vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Lumu vs. Trellix Network Detection and Response report.

See our list of best Network Detection and Response (NDR) vendors.

We monitor all Network Detection and Response (NDR) 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.