No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator vs NetWitness NDR comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 2024

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

Torq
Sponsored
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (1st), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st)
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
16th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NetWitness NDR
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
23rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (48th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (33rd), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (56th), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (19th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (38th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Torq is 3.5%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is 1.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetWitness NDR is 1.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Torq3.5%
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator1.8%
NetWitness NDR1.8%
Other92.9%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

AD
Solutions Architect at ProArch
Automation has streamlined multi-tenant SOC workflows and improves alert handling efficiency
Although the reporting within Torq is not that great, we did ask for many features regarding reporting in Torq, but due to some platform constraints, they could not make the whole dataset available for us to be used in reporting. Except for that, we used some basic reporting. When I used Torq, it was indeed in the early stages of AI capabilities. Only a few customers were allowed to use it, and we were among them. It functioned well as long as we summarized the data properly. If you input garbage, you would get garbage out. Thus, we had to do significant fine-tuning regarding what data context we provided to the AI orchestrator to get meaningful results. In terms of Torq's unified platform approach to AI SOC automation and case management compared to managing multiple point solutions across my security stack, I find it case-centric. The unified view in case management is good since it provides clarity, although there are limitations regarding how many items in case management can be modified at once. Bulk operations are very limited, potentially due to their back-end database or data retrieval processes that can be improved. Regarding improvements for Torq, when we were onboarded, there were aspects we were uncertain about, such as the number of cases that could be generated, what data we could bring in, how many clients we could onboard, and similar concerns. Initially, we also lacked clarity about the number of playbooks or workflows we could build. Different triggers like system triggers, case-based triggers, and others can be employed without restrictions, but when it comes to on-demand and scheduled jobs, there is a limitation based on the subscription and pricing tier that notably caps the number of workflows we can create. No bulk editing across cases was one issue, along with limited filtering related to single grouping constraints. Additionally, the out-of-the-box case templates provided require substantial modifications before they become usable. There is also a feature in the cases for notes that cannot be searched. They are only visible through the UI, which is another area for improvement. The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially. I am not sure if new customers are made aware of this. It seems that workflows revolving around cases hinder functionality outside of case management, as we have many use cases needing on-demand triggers and schedules for functions like reporting or polling devices. Creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers. While they facilitate optimization and scaling, the support received tends to be very basic. Improvements can be made in that area as well.
Binu Haneef - PeerSpot reviewer
System Administrator at Sky News Arabia
Comprehensive security management enabled through efficient integration and automation
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator helps automate routine security tasks. We created customized automation. For example, when we did not have an EDR or XDR solution, we created tasks exclusively for detection and response automation and automatic segregation of infected PCs. The ability to customize the dashboard in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator helps us significantly. The main feature is automation for auto-segmentation and segregation. As we are in an AI era, McAfee can focus on AI tools. Instead of putting manual effort into each security-related task, it can implement more advanced automation using AI. This enhancement could improve cybersecurity significantly. Regarding the reporting area in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, we are satisfied with what we currently have. Our cybersecurity team needs customized reports beyond the default ones. We have more than 20 separate reports for identifying threats, managing, and understanding the security posture of our company and assets.
reviewer1799727 - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager, IT Security Operations at a non-profit with 11-50 employees
Reliable and good support but can be expensive
I have no real complaints about the solution. Threat detection could be better. They need to enhance their threat intelligence feeds. We would like to have more IOCs or more trade intelligence to not only rely on the intelligence of the engineer in charge but to have some threat intelligence and some seeds of IOCs and to have the host have some artificial intelligence to reduce the number of false positives. I don't see this solution being very scalable. The solution is pricey.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Once I started to use the system and I saw the potential, it changed all of our work in IT."
"Torq offers the best feature through integration with AI."
"Under one SOC tool in Torq, analysts get to know everything within the context of an alert or incident they are working on, and this ability to view the whole picture within Torq is one of the major breakthroughs and best offerings of Torq."
"Since we started working with Torq, I am handling much fewer alerts, it is becoming really easy for me to handle an alert, I have all the information that I need, I do not need to connect to different vendors to receive this information, and the main thing I got from Torq is time, which now helps me to build another automated system and learn."
"Torq has exceeded expectations by delivering workflows in a timely and lower effort manner than XSOAR, and it meets all my needs while saving a ton of time and targeting $600,000 saved this year, which is a substantial amount of money."
"What I liked the most about Torq is the actual workflow builder, which is really great because they offer a lot of features and convenience features that are useful for any automation engineer."
"Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes."
"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"You have to have some experience, however, it's pretty simple to understand."
"I like McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator software; it is great centralized security management software that allows management of various McAfee products on the client computers and makes risk and compliance management in the organization simpler and more reliable."
"It is a scalable solution...I rate its scalability a nine out of ten."
"What I like the most is the ability to manage centrally, to manage the various devices, the platform, and the endpoint, all from one console."
"The policy auditing, policy management, and device auditing are all valuable features. Our customers appreciated the ability to get alerts to system-wide events from a single view."
"The central manager policy is valuable, meaning we have almost all client modules in one solution, which is great."
"This is a solution that I recommend and would suggest for others to use."
"Their support is really good. I would rate it a nine out of ten. I have never any issues with their support. They always reply and follow our queries on time."
"We like the solution doesn't have to be managed by an IT department; it's easy to use and you can still check the machine without the IT department being involved."
"NetWitness Endpoint has enabled us to detect attacks that bypass the first stage of cybersecurity, like zero-day and advanced attacks."
"The log correlation is good."
"We've contacted technical support several times. They've been very good. They have been able to help us resolve our issues."
"We use it for IT security purposes; this is our central log management solution, so we incorporate all of our servers and PCs into this software and can monitor the logs from there."
"Ability to isolate the machine when there are malicious files."
"This solution allows us to locate the malware in real-time."
"The interface of this solution is very flexible and easy to use."
 

Cons

"There are some issues and bugs that I think need to be fixed, but they are currently not focused on it."
"The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially, and creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers."
"However, we did encounter some problems with custom steps, which definitely affected our progress, and the speed of bug fixes is also a bit slower than expected."
"Torq can probably use more ML and look at what can be closed and what cannot be closed in terms of data classification."
"Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true."
"Regarding stability, I have noticed some lagging, crashing, and downtime, which is one of my largest gripes."
"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."
"Regarding the pricing of Torq, I would say it is expensive."
"One thing that I don't like is that McAfee products change very often and upgrade very often."
"I would like to see McAfee reduce the amount of manual work required."
"I have noticed several times that some viruses were not detected by McAfee ENS and we had to escalate support and modify detection signatures."
"There is no built-in or easy upgrade of the system."
"The technical support is pretty poor."
"The rollout to cover the online resources, such as SharePoint, One Drive, and Office 365 doesn't seem to have a very clear path."
"The issues with the integration capabilities of the product, specifically the ones that are deployed on an on-premises model, need to be improved."
"The impact of the agent on the endpoint's performance - the resources it takes. Additionally, the difficulties we experience with inheriting and breaking inheritance on the organization's structure breakdown for policy inheritance and then for rules inheritance. We are actually struggling with this."
"The problem with this product is that it's a bit slow."
"The integration of the solution needs to be improved. The dashboard needs lots of updates as well. In the next release, we would like to see advanced fraud detection features."
"I would like to see Security Orchestration and Response Automation (SOAR) integration."
"The solution is modular, for example you can buy the RSA ePack, which you buy as a module is not part of the conduit solution. They could include it and have it as an all-in-one solution."
"The solution lacks a reporting engine."
"When analyzing something, you have to click several times. It requires a lot of effort to find something."
"I don't see this solution being very scalable."
"Its price could be improved. It is an expensive product. Its training is also too expensive. It would be great if they can have a better pricing scheme for the training."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is a cheaply priced product, meaning it is not expensive since McAfee provides a free version of ePO, which includes phone support as well."
"McAfee tries to package different things into different products, then sell them as different products with different licenses. They just split everything up into multiple things. That's just their sales pitch and how they do it."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a three out of ten."
"For large enterprise companies, the price should be alright, but for small businesses, the uptake might be slow because, for these clients, the price doesn't look very attractive."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is not an expensive solution."
"This solution is priced in the mid-range."
"It is attractively priced. It is a fraction of what we're going to pay for CrowdStrike or SentinelOne, but it only has a fraction of the capabilities as well."
"$The price of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is expensive, it is approximately $6,000 to $9,000 per license annually."
"NetWitness Endpoint is less costly than its competitors, but it offers fewer features."
"The cost depends on the number of endpoints that you want to monitor, but it is not expensive."
"The price of the solution depends on the environment. If the environment is large then it will cost more. However, the larger the environment with more endpoints, you will receive an increased discount. If the environment is very small, then you might think it is expensive. It is always better to buy in bulk to receive a discount. The minimum number of assets is usually 500, with discounts on 1000 and 2000."
"With RSA, there is flexibility in choosing the service, products, and the range that meets your requirement, as well as they are flexible in terms of pricing."
"It is highly scalable. It can be bought based on your requirements."
"They can easily adjust if you have the requirements which are required. If you have a budget cut or a budget constraint, they can bend."
"It is an expensive product."
"The pricing is not very economical. It is a quite costly product for India. One thing is that when you purchase it, you have to purchase a module separately."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
15%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise11
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise19
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise6
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?
There are some bugs in Torq, of course. They can be present in data transformation, some UI debugging, and other area...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
My main use case for Torq is the automation of cyber security processes through a SOAR platform and APIs. A main exam...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
Regarding someone thinking about using Torq, I recommend looking into their provided academy to start working with th...
Which is better - Mcafee's MVision ePO or ePolicy Orchestrator?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Mcafee's MVision ePO or ePolicy Orchestrator network secur...
What needs improvement with McAfee MVISION ePO?
There is a question regarding suggestions for additional tools or functions for McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, and whet...
What is your primary use case for McAfee MVISION ePO?
The question pertains to describing the use case and process for which people utilize McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
McAfee ePO, ePolicy Orchestrator, Intel Security ePolicy Orchestrator, McAfee MVISION ePO
RSA ECAT, NetWitness Network
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Brelje & Race, Cognizant, Sutherland Global Services, Eagle Rock Energy, Arab National Bank, Bank Central Asia, Kleberg Bank, Leading Mexican Bank, SF Police Credit Union, Macquarie Telecom, Seagate Technology, Blackburn & Darwen Council, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, IRCEP, Major U.S. State Government, State of Alaska, State of Colorado, Cemex, Deutsche Edelstahlwerke
ADP, Ameritas, Partners Healthcare
Find out what your peers are saying about McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator vs. NetWitness NDR and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.