Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

We use this solution for endpoint protection, CASB, and it is integrated with Office 365.

The most valuable feature is ease of use.

The dashboard is quite good.

I would like to see more integration with third-party products.

Pricing is always something that can be improved.

In the future, this product should make use of artificial intelligence and machine learning technology.

We have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for more than 10 years.

The stability is good and we haven't had any issues.

Scalability-wise, McAfee is a good product.

The technical support from McAfee is about average.

We use Symantec as well as McAfee for endpoint protection.

We have found that McAfee has better coverage when compared to Symantec.

The price of McAfee is pretty similar to Symantec, and there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

In summary, this is a good product and they have most aspects covered. That said, it needs better integration with third-party products. Even the integration with other McAfee products can be improved further.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is for endpoint protection, to block malware and viruses.

We like the web control and firewall.

I have been using McAfee for twenty years. 

It's very stable.

Scalability also works nicely. It's easier to scale it out on thousands of machines.

We only require two staff members for maintenance. There around 16,000 users. 

They have two different kinds of support. One is enterprise support and one is normal support. They charge more for enterprise support and when we raise tickets we get a good response but with the normal support, their response is not quick. They don't give much preference to normal support. It can take three, four days, or even a week to get a reply from them.

Being in the IT industry, we have come across different products, McAfee and Defender plus Symantec, and Trend Micro. For my needs, I like McAfee the most. Symantec might be equivalent but I like McAfee the most.

There are good web, application, and firewall control features. It would be helpful if the controlling of connections coming to the PC could be done from McAfee's side so that we can block those connections. 

It's a good product. I would recommend it. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. It's easy to use and it's very powerful. It offers nice endpoint protection.

We use this product for our endpoint security.

The most valuable features are:  

- reporting facility using the ePO console for conformity and threat identification  

- using the advanced threat protection (ATP) 

- MNE module for customising and securing Windows Bitlocker.

We know that McAfee isn't the best antivirus and it can't protect us 100%, although we are okay with the level of protection that it gives us. I don't think that the problem lies in the antivirus, but rather, it's the user. Users are not happy with the antivirus and they try to solve the issue on their own, and that causes very big problems.

The is an incompatibility problem between Mcafee and Linux subsystem for Windows, another that has to do with Outlook and scripts. McAfee knows that, but the problem can't be solved at this time so we try to minimize the effect.

We have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for ten years.

In terms of stability, we haven't had many problems.

We use that solution for more that 10k station and servers, and we have space to grow...

The support that we get from McAfee is excellent.

We tried Bitdefender, F-Secure, and many other products before settling on McAfee. When our central agency switched to McAfee, we all adopted it.

The price of this product is good.

One of our subsidiaries has tried to switch products, although I don't know the reason why. Ultimately, the project was aborted.

My advice for anybody who is looking at McAfee Endpoint Security is simply to use it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for all Windows and MAC clients. We use it for endpoint protection, DLP, and disk encryption. We are using the latest version.

The endpoint protection and disk encryption features are the most valuable.

It didn't work well for some of the use cases. We have different use cases for each entity. 

Their support is also not good and needs improvement.

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for almost three years.

Only the endpoint is stable. There are still a few things that need to be done in DLP.

It can scale. We have around 10K users who use it on a daily basis. 

Their support is not good. It needs to be improved.

We used Symantec previously. They didn't have a suite, and I wanted a suite that can give me a single control panel to manage my endpoint protection, DLP, and disk encryption. I wanted to use only a single agent with different modules so that I don't have to worry about multiple things.

It was not that simple. I would say it was moderate. It took more than three months to stabilize.

We used a partner integrator. We maintain it on our own. 

It is not that expensive. There is no additional cost. We got the entire bundle together.

I would not recommend this solution because a lot of new-age solutions are available in the market. These solutions are better than McAfee Endpoint Security and can do a better job.

I would rate McAfee Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

We want more protection for our servers. We would like to know if a real incident or something compromising is happening. Therefore, we have deployed this EDR solution.

The exploit guard and malware protection features are very useful. The logon tracker feature is also very useful. 

They have also given new modules such as logout backup, process backup. We ordered these modules from the FireEye market place, and we have installed these modules. We are currently exploring these features. 

The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux.

We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap.

We have been using FireEye Endpoint Security for the past two years.

The current version is more stable than the previous ones.

It is easily scalable.

My experience was 50/50. Sometimes, it was good. Sometimes, they took some time.

We were using McAfee AV. We switched to FireEye Endpoint Security because we had some performance issues with McAfee AV. We are not facing those issues with FireEye Endpoint Security.

It is easy to deploy. It took us a month to deploy. 

Deployment may take more time based on the architecture and the environment. With some vendors, it took us some time to analyze because there were things that we wanted to monitor, which depended on the production. Therefore, we installed it step by step, not in one step at full force.

If you are deploying on Windows or Mac, there will be minimal issues, and you can go for this solution. With Linux, you need to understand a few features. What you expect from Windows and Mac is not available in Linux. If your main technologies are open source, then probably rethink about FireEye Endpoint Security. You can go for FireEye Endpoint Security after they have the same capabilities in Linux. Most of the features are there in their roadmap.

We mostly faced issues with Linux support. In the past, we also had issues related to communication between an agent and an endpoint where they didn't communicate, the communication got stopped automatically, or the data communication time didn't sync properly. In the later versions, they improved and resolved these issues.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. It's gradually growing, and a few features that we require are not there. If these requirements are satisfied, I would rate them nine or ten.

This product is mainly used for detecting viruses and malware on the laptops and also to scan older, existing files.  

The ability to check a wide range of vulnerabilities and devices is a very valuable feature in this product. This is not really a user interface or manually driven product. VirusScan gives an alert to the user that a scan should be performed on their device and the user has to click it to initiate the scan. Then McAfee scans the device and it gives a report saying that it has run a scan of the system and now everything is fine. It runs for the user rather than manual scanning.  

We are using it so the company is providing better security coverage end-to-end. I am not sure how to improve on that because it already achieves that goal and updates constantly.  

One thing I think it should do is alert administration if some attack is happening in local systems. I am not seeing that kind of alert. When users run a scan on their own system and nothing is found, that is fine. But ideally, VirusScan also has to send a notification of the source of an attack if one is detected.  

For example, if the threat came from opening an email attachment, an alert could be broadcast to warn other users on the system not to open the same attachment and McAfee could do that automatically. Something like that. Or at least it should make a report or alert for the administrator so that they can take the proper action.  

For the last six to eight years we have been using McAfee VirusScan Enterprise.  

The stability of the solution is fine, actually, and we are satisfied. It does not have a problem working with the 10,000+ users in our organization. It checks and updates everything every day and the stability is there.  

The scalability with McAfee is good. We currently have about 10,000 laptops which we are using it to secure. It is globally distributed and everybody uses the data scanning to ensure data security is a high priority.  

The people are using it with roles that range from the top to the bottom of the corporation. It is mandatory to use McAfee to ensure that we are in compliance with security regulations as well as preventing data loss on our local systems.  

We have plans to increase the usage of this product as the employee base and the number of devices increases.  

I did not have a chance to interact with the technical support team at McAfee because our local internal IT takes care of everything when it comes to the maintenance. Some issues that we have occur because the product is not upgrading locally for whatever reason. Our IT people will handle that type of minor support issue for us.  

As far as I know, before this company used McAfee VirusScan as a solution for these past six to seven years, there was not another endpoint security protection product in place.   

The initial setup is straightforward for the administration. The end-user should not have to do anything. There is an automatic trigger and it scans devices on the network along with their files and automatically generates a report. That is all there is to it. It is updated through the central station which tracks the upgrades and the devices that it scans.  

The implementation is kind of done in incremental steps because it is a cloud solution. It is just being pushed from the system to the central location. The agent runs on every laptop and we either manually click it when it issues a notice that it is time to scan the device, or it triggers by itself. It automatically runs these processes without intervention.  

As always, the cost of the licenses has to be paid and it will be per user per year. But the cost is minimal because we have taken a sort of deal with McAfee for a site license.  

I recommend McAfee VirusScan to everyone in an enterprise environment. Part of the reason is that nowadays everyone is working from home. Their systems and devices have to be secure when they are connecting externally to the internal network with whatever device they are using. They should have at least one security solution in their system so that they can avoid vulnerabilities that they may encounter outside of the secure internal network. VirusScan ensures that is happening.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate McAfee VirusScan Enterprise as a nine-out-of-ten. It is a very good solution and gives good blanket protection.  

We are a solution provider and McAfee MVISION Endpoint is one of the products that we implement for our clients. Our clients use it to help manage their security.

The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision. It allows for greater granularity.

Our clients use the VPN to create secure connections to their servers.

A policy-editing console should be added.

Having automatic updates would be helpful.

We have been dealing with this product for about two years.

We are completing two deployments each week and I don't have any comments with regards to stability. I would say that it's stable enough.

We have about 20 clients who are using this solution and it is easy to scale. I would estimate the number of users to be about 400.

McAfee has good support and they are very responsive.

We deal with endpoint solutions from several vendors including Sophos, Symantec, and CrowdStrike. We are still using Symantec in parallel with McAfee.

The capabilities of these products are similar and the real difference is in the support. McAfee has the best support nowadays, as Symantec takes too long to respond.

The initial setup sometimes has to be done manually because of issues with Active Directory. That said, it is not normally complex. Complexity can come from using export files because McAfee does not have a policy-editing console.

One of the recent deployments we completed required three of us 15 days. This including training people in different locations.

We implement and deploy this product for our clients.

Licensing fees are billed on a yearly basis.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for intrusion prevention.

We are service providers.

The most valuable features are the prevention layer that detects the signature value and prevents threats in the network.

The reporting could be improved, by providing more reporting features.

The resolution time should be faster.

I have been working with McAfee Endpoint for more than ten years.

We have experienced a few issues.

I have contacted technical support and they are good.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It takes two days to deploy.

We did not use a vendor or an integrator, we have our own team.

I have experience with multiple vendors and this is a product I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.