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

Open EDR 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

Open EDR
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
35th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Trellix Endpoint Security P...
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
158
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (9th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category, the mindshare of Open EDR is 1.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Endpoint Security Platform is 4.2%, down from 4.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
 

Featured Reviews

Timothy Muriithi - PeerSpot reviewer
I also like the ability to remotely manage update packages on your systems, and the fact that there is an open source version
Setting OpenEDR was challenging at first, but I got it done by following their documentation and online videos. You need to install the client and configure it to work with their online open platform. Next, you have to configure it on the device if it's a phone. You input a cloud link to the EDR, so you can monitor it from the cloud. There isn't any maintenance aside from updating the client. It's mostly on the cloud.
Abdullah Al Hadi - PeerSpot reviewer
Customization capabilities allow clients to autonomously deploy policies
There are a few areas where Trellix Endpoint Security 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

"Comodo includes a firewall and antivirus in one solution. I also like the ability to remotely manage update packages on your systems. Comodo can even find a lost device and secure it remotely."
"It's easy to use."
"The threat scanning is excellent. It uses predictive technology and I can utilize attack data to help us fine-tune our systems and network infrastructure. This protects us against current and future attacks."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"MVISION Endpoint is so much easier and so much simpler for the lay security personnel to handle."
"The endpoint security, antivirus and firewall are the most valuable features of Trellix Endpoint Security."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its simplicity."
"Provides protection against threats."
"It is easy to use, flexible, and stable. Because it is a cloud-based solution and it integrates all endpoints of the cloud, we can do an IOC-based search. It can search the entire enterprise and tell us the endpoints that are possibly compromised."
 

Cons

"Comodo includes a firewall and antivirus in one solution. I also like the ability to remotely manage update packages on your systems. Comodo can even find a lost device and secure it remotely."
"The main area for improvement is the integration with Microsoft Windows Hello, which includes Face ID or fingerprint-based authentication. Currently, they don't support either, so users have to type in the username and password."
"The solution could provide open XDR in addition to EDR."
"McAfee GW Security and McAfee Child Safety need some improvement as they are relatively new."
"They can improve its resource consumption, such as memory, and maybe provide better or smaller updates. It always takes a lot of resources, but it has been getting better. I have been using McAfee products for the last 20 years or so, and I know it is getting better."
"We would like to solution to offer better security."
"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."
"The agent is very heavy, so we have to ensure that we have a lightweight agent for Windows systems."
"I would like to have the ability to have more control over the deployment in the next release. If you have this console in the cloud, you cannot make pilot groups for deploying the agents. We only have the current group. So, as soon as you inject the software, it will go directly into production, which doesn't work for us. We need to build up pilot groups slowly. We already requested to have this feature on the cloud, and we are still waiting."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"There's a subscription on a yearly basis. It's not that expensive; it's quite affordable."
"No comment."
"We pay 650 Rand for a license. It is a perpetual license which we normally run for two years."
"Annual license fee is good"
"Customers would need to purchase a license. If a customer purchases an MVISION Endpoint license, he may use that license to install ENS. It's a flexible license where you have the option to either use the McAfee security software or the Windows Defender managed by McAfee, which is MVISION Endpoint."
"The price of the product is similar to the ones in the market that offer the same features."
"Its price is very high. It is higher than its competitors, and it should be less."
"McAfee's prices are flexible and can be quite competitive, although there are other solutions that are even more so."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.
865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Retailer
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Government
7%
Government
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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 CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Microsoft and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR). Updated: January 2025.
865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.