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

Sangfor Endpoint Secure vs Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 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

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Net...
Sponsored
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
108
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (5th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (6th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (2nd)
Sangfor Endpoint Secure
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
27th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Trellix Endpoint Detection ...
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
23rd
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.4%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sangfor Endpoint Secure is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is 1.1%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks3.4%
Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)1.1%
Sangfor Endpoint Secure0.8%
Other94.7%
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
 

Featured Reviews

ABHISHEK_SINGH - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Process Expert at A.P. Moller - Maersk
Gained full visibility and streamlined threat detection through behavior-based insights and AI integration
Initially, we got to have a lot of false positives when we onboarded, but nowadays it's quite smooth. We have fine-tuned our security policies and allowed different levels of policies to get rid of those false positives. Currently, we are getting a fairly good amount of incidents that are not false positives or benign, but actionable items. The process is streamlined. In the initial days, the operations used to get involved in a lot of benign and other activities, but now the process is streamlined. We are leveraging the auto-detection and remediation plans. The operations teams are now more involved in other business roles as well, not just looking into the logs and fetching out what's happening there. They have fixed a lot of things. Initially, they didn't have IAC code drift detection, cloud posture management, or security posture management, but they have those now. They purchased different vendors and did a merger with that. They have now Prisma Cloud that gets integrated and now they are working with Cortex Cloud. Everything that was negative has now been addressed, and the product altogether looks to be in a very better and mature shape now. Currently, it's more or less detecting the workloads with AI-based best practices. Since most organizations are consuming AI agents and other things, we are looking forward to seeing what other feature enhancements Palo Alto can support in that.
OA
Coordinator Associate at National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases
Quick threat response and behavior analysis while enhancing network security
The main use case is usually related to security. It deals with attacks that come day-to-day such as zero-day attacks and APT attacks. Our main task is to secure the network infrastructure in the hospital where I work It facilitates the departments of IT and other departments to procure and…
Ronald Paz - PeerSpot reviewer
Consulting Systems Engineer at Boomslang Tech
Improved endpoint investigations and response have reduced risk but integration still needs work
I believe that Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) can be improved with better integration with other tools such as Cisco, Check Point, and Palo Alto. Cybersecurity professionals need agnostic tools that integrate with all the tools in their network. I think the workflow could be better; it is difficult to translate as simple letters and needs a more intuitive investigation workflow. I chose a six for my rating because I need EDR integration with different tools, tools with an intuitive investigation workflow, advanced native threat hunting queries, and cloud and hybrid visibility expansion. An important point would be noise reduction and alert context enrichment, as some medium-severity alerts may require additional contextual enrichment or automatic correlation with identity risk scores to help prioritize better.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is a new generation XDR that has a lot of artificial intelligence modules."
"The behavior-based detection feature is valuable."
"We've had a significant increase in blocking with a decrease in false positives, because it's looking at how the files work, not just a list of files that it's been told to look for."
"Cortex XDR is a simple platform that's easy for administrators and users. You have a lot of flexibility to change or customize the features."
"Being a cloud solution it is very flexible in serving internal and external connections and a broad range of devices."
"It collects and caches and the knowledge of machine learning from different customers to take to the cloud. It makes it better to use for everybody. It allows for quick learning and updates and can, therefore, offer zero-day malware security. This sharing of metadata helps make the solution very safe."
"What I like about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is that it is a comprehensive solution that contains everything the organization may need when using endpoints."
"The solution allows us to make investigations. Other XDR solutions also provide similar capabilities but for investigation, Cortex XDR is better."
"The real-time monitoring feature of Sangfor Endpoint Secure is truly real-time, with no delay compared to other solutions."
"The tool's AI feature is helpful in endpoint security."
"What stands out to me is the dual-end user interface they provide."
"I like the tool's honeypot feature. Some features include having a honeypot to detect attacks in a certain area. Additionally, there is RDP protection, which means that when we remote into our server or any endpoint, we must enter a password as a second layer of security. It can also integrate with next-generation firewalls."
"We use the product for network protection from any malicious threat."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"It has a quick response time, threat intelligence, cybersecurity features, quick report generation, behavior analysis, dynamic detection, and quarantine features."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure has some good policy certificates."
"It relies on external systems for detection and then asks the endpoint to handle blocking. However, the most crucial feature is its investigative capabilities. With real-time search and other functionalities, it enables comprehensive detection and response."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its area for threat detection."
"The product is user-friendly."
"The biggest strength of the solution is that it's an integrated product that includes EDR and antivirus."
"If there is any malicious behavior in the workstation or server, the tool stops or isolates it automatically and generates alerts."
"It is a scalable solution and very easy to use."
"Trellix has done a good job reducing threats."
"Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is valuable because we have a Wide Area Network with many sites, and the EDR is cross-site since it is installed and managed from the cloud."
 

Cons

"It's more focused on network communication. If a customer wants to increase the level of protection and start working with documents, it's impossible to integrate these features into the system. It's more of a communication-oriented system than a content security-oriented system."
"Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats."
"Traps doesn't work with McAfee. You need to remove McAfee to install Traps. This is very common, and its nothing that should be an issue. Some antivirus engines recognize Traps as an threat component, so maybe they need to shake hands somewhere."
"While using Cortex, I noticed some aspects that could be improved, such as increasing the synchronization speed between XDR and Xnor."
"The deployment is pretty hard."
"Cortex does not offer an on-premises solution. However, some customers would prefer not to be on the cloud. It would be ideal if it could offer something on-prem as well."
"They've been having some issues with updating their endpoint agents, and it has been quite frustrating."
"It is a complex solution to implement."
"Sometimes, the VPN is not secure and doesn't work properly in Sangfor Endpoint Secure."
"When an issue occurs, the response time for first-level support and the time taken for meetings could be improved."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure performs poorly."
"I believe Sangfor Endpoint Secure could improve in terms of its user interface and management capabilities."
"There are a few areas for improvement. We have encountered licensing issues on occasion, and sometimes updates don't apply properly."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure should include healing capabilities."
"It is complicated to establish a tunnel due to technical issues in the VPN system."
"Currently, the tool lacks reporting functionalities."
"Some modules that are doing machine learning and artificial intelligence are blocking our processes."
"Trellix does not support Linux and Mac."
"I'd like the tool to become more like an XDR, with one management system and endpoint activation."
"The solution lacks the ability to integrate with external platforms. In future releases of the solution, I would like to see the solution increase its integration capabilities with external platforms."
"The dashboard is split across different platforms. For example, if you want information on Incident Detection, you have to access one dashboard, and for DLP reporting, there's a separate platform. This fragmentation means you can't access everything from a single dashboard."
"The solution's downside stems from the fact that Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and McAfee MVISION Endpoint are not combined into a single solution, so from an improvement perspective, they need to be combined into a single solution."
"Trellix needs to focus on gaining traction with partners and building trust among users."
"The dashboard and reporting features are not so user-friendly or intuitive, so they need some work."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I don't recall what the cost was, but it wasn't really that expensive."
"We didn't have to pay any additional fee for the cloud instance. It just came with the renewal, which was nice."
"The pricing is a little bit on the expensive side."
"It has a yearly renewal."
"The solution is expensive. It's pricing is on a yearly-basis."
"We pay about $50,000 USD per year for a bundle that includes Cortex XDR."
"This is an expensive solution."
"The price of the solution is high for the license and in general."
"The product is expensive compared to other vendors."
"We were using Hyper-V. So, we switched to Sangfor because of the pricing."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure is not a cheap solution."
"The solution is cheap. It is cheaper than other products by 15-20 percent."
"Its "pay as you grow" model offers cost-effectiveness compared to major cloud providers."
"Price-wise, Sangfor Endpoint Secure can be considered a competitively priced product in the market as it offers quite low prices compared to other solutions."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure's pricing is cheap. I rate it seven out of ten."
"Pricing is a problem in South Africa. It could be cheaper here. The rand-to-dollar exchange rate makes it expensive for us. A 25 dollar endpoint cost becomes quite significant when converted to rand."
"Speaking about the price, you must use the product to find the product's cost for you."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low and ten is high, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten."
"The licensing costs attached to the solution are very easy to manage. There is a need to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs."
"Pricing for McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is not that expensive, but it's not something that a startup could buy. Pricing for it is for midsized businesses. There's an additional payment if you want data retention for more than thirty days. They gave us data retention for thirty days. Then if you want longer data retention, they have the paid option for a three-month data retention period and for a one-year data retention period."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is reasonable in terms of cost. It's a tool my company has been using for a few years now. It costs $25,000 to $30,000 for six hundred users."
"The cost is okay, compared to other products."
"The pricing is always high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business44
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise47
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise11
 

Questions from the Community

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. Sentinel One
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks. ...
Comparing CrowdStrike Falcon to Cortex XDR (Palo Alto)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions th...
How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface,...
What needs improvement with Sangfor Endpoint Secure?
The interface has too many buttons, making it cluttered. It would be better if it were a simplified version with fewe...
What is your primary use case for Sangfor Endpoint Secure?
Sangfor Endpoint Secure is easy to handle with its user-friendly interface. The four engines it utilizes for endpoint...
What advice do you have for others considering Sangfor Endpoint Secure?
At first, people might not understand the interface, which is why it should be simplified. However, once they underst...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response?
I pay for what we get. But the service level from my partner company is not enough to overcome a complex case.
What needs improvement with McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response?
I believe this is a product in evolution. I do not think it is a final tool to conduct forensics or information foren...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
No data available
McAfee MVISION EDR, MVISION EDR, MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Information Not Available
Sutherland Global Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Sangfor Endpoint Secure vs. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.