Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

MVISION offers decent protection.

The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release. 

I've been using MVISION for three years.

MVISION is stable.

MVISION is scalable. 

Setting up MVISION is easy.

We have an annual license and pay extra for support.

I rate McAfee MVISION Endpoint six out of 10. It's a good product, but not the best. I wouldn't recommend it to others because it's not secure enough. 

McAfee MVISION Endpoint is used for endpoint protection. Protects the files and network against viruses and malware.

The price of McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve.

I have been using McAfee MVISION Endpoint for approximately one year.

McAfee MVISION Endpoint is stable.

I have previously used Check Point and Microsoft Defender. I would recommend Microsoft Defender over the other solutions I have used.

The installation of the McAfee MVISION Endpoint was simple. We are able to do it remotely from a central location.

I have had a return on investment by using McAfee MVISION Endpoint.

We are on an annual subscription for McAfee MVISION Endpoint. The cost for the license could be less expensive.

I rate McAfee MVISION Endpoint a six out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for security. Sometimes we try to shift to other security sites, however, whenever we compare this solution with the others, we found that McAfee developing in more dynamic ways.

It has a great console. We can manage everything from the central console and it is very easy. Every year we are getting the benefits of legacy also.

It's easy to set up.

Some agents become old and then they don't communicate well any longer. They need an update. They need to make sure that older agents on active computers communicate properly.

Sometimes the agents stop working, however, we cannot understand why. This is sometimes a problem, especially if some agent is not communicating for one month or two months. We're not sure if there's a backlog or if it got infected. We need to know right away if an agent has stopped working and possibly what has caused it to stop. 

They have a dashboard. In the dashboard, you can see if a signature is in backlog, and it becomes red. This is also required if new agents or some number of event communications stop. 

I've been using the solution for about seven years.

The solution has been stable. there are not any bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze.

It is able to scale as required.

We have about 2,500 people using the solution. We have that amount of servers and PCs.

Technical support has been great. They always help us to resolve any issues. We are quite satisfied with them. If they ever run into issues, they can also open up a ticket with the OEM. we've never had an incident where our issues weren't resolved.

Before I started with the company, it may have been using AVG. While I was not responsible for the shift, at the time I came on, the company was growing by quite a lot, which may have initiated the change in solutions. 

The initial setup is very simple. It's not overly complex. We have two people who are able to handle its implementation.

It takes us about two weeks to set everything up.

I work with this solution and I have two junior colleagues. They also help me and we have an IT support team that assists as well. They are actually installing it into the new laptops and they actually sometimes take on basic troubleshooting. basically from the server end, I take care of it and I have two helping hands and we have 15 members in IT support. They provide support to the end-user.

We have a vendor that helps us with the initial setup.

I have not been monitoring for ROI.

We pay for the solution on a yearly basis. 

It is affordable. I don't exactly know the amount as it is maintained by someone else on my team. We have another separate team that basically manages the financial part. 

We are a customer and end-user. 

We always want it updated to the latest version.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The solution enables me to monitor all my endpoints and ensure that our agents are reporting to the FireEye management server. That is key for allowing us to see any suspicious traffic coming in. I'm the delivery manager and we are customers of FireEye. 

I like the console and the GUI is user-friendly. One of the most important and critical features is containment. Suppose something gets infected and there's the possibility of it spreading laterally and causing a problem or compromising a network. FireEye has a feature that enables it to disconnect from a system network so that the infection doesn't spread. 

Even if an incident occurs at night when support teams are not available, the feature can contain the infection so that when the support teams get to work, they can carry out the remediation part and bring the system back to production.

I'd like to see the searches enhanced because when I hand over the product to someone without experience, it should be user-friendly to them as well. If the feature was enhanced, and the amount of data that comes in reduced, it would simplify the process for anyone. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable.

I haven't had any issues with scalability. 

The support is pretty good, we haven't had any problems. 

Neutral

We had a separate team implementing FireEye and there didn't seem to be any issues so I think deployment was relatively straightforward. 

I prefer FireEye to solutions like CrowdStrike, Carbon Black, and Trend Micro which are not as user-friendly. FireEye is also easier to integrate with the SIEM, so all the logs get pushed and there are no issues getting the device integrated with SIEM. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We are using all Trellix solutions, and we are also using all McAfee products. Our customers are using virus scan for the old platforms, Endpoint Security, MVISION, File and Folder Encryption, File and Folder Protection, and Device Control, but at the moment, I am really interested in the integration between the new Trellix solution like MVISION and FireEye.

It is a really strong solution for endpoint security.

There should be better integration between the ePolicy Orchestrator and FireEye console. The integration of both consoles should be better.

I have been using this solution for about six years.

Its stability is perfect.

Its scalability is perfect. In our company, we have between 2,000 and 3,000 users, but our installation has about 50,000 endpoints for all customers.

They're very good. I am in contact with their support about five times a day, and they respond quickly.

Positive

It was easy. I have been using Trellix since the carbon age. I have been using Trellix since the day it was released.

Its deployment doesn't take long. 

I customize every installation.

It is not so cheap in comparison to Sophos and other solutions.

Make a really detailed survey of all the systems before implementing any solution on the endpoint. Do not buy the license and try deployment after that.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10.

The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities.

The way that signatures work when using this solution could be improved. They could be more user friendly. We would like the ability to select a client's signature from a menu or file share to save time. 

FireEye allows three releases per day which are automated. If the automation fails for some reason, the release fails. FireEye does not allow manual releases. This is why we are moving away from using this solution. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

The customer service is good. 

Neutral

I have previously used Symantec at a different company. I think Symantec is the best solution overall. 

The initial setup was quite complex. It took three months for us to roll out the solution. 

The suitability of FireEye for a business depends on the business itself. 
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

McAfee is a security-based company. All of their products are related to the security of networking. We have approximately 15 to 20 customers working with McAfee Endpoint Security.

McAfee Endpoint Security does not hang the machines. They are also not very heavy on the end-users.

Along with improving scalability, I would like DLP features to be added in to the endpoint security. 

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for almost 12 years.

The solution is quite stable.

I would give McAfee a 7 out of 10 for scalability, there is room to improve.

The initial installation is not complex. It does depend on how big your network is, but normally it's one day's work.

I believe their prices are very good. Our customers pay an annual license fee.

All of the endpoint security solutions have more or less the same kind of features. There is nothing exceptional about one product versus the other. McAfee is not as strong as other solutions like Kaspersky, Trend Micro, or Carbon Black.

I would not discourage anyone from using McAfee Endpoint Security as it is quite a strong solution. I would rate the solution a 7 out of 10.

The solution is specifically used at the endpoints. We do a lot of integrations with various clients. 

A single agent can cover multiple units.

The installation is pretty straightforward. 

The solution can integrate into other products.

The solution is not really stable. 

Every time we open a ticket with McAfee, their response differs and they are not consistent. For example, they might say the issue will be addressed in the next release. Then, the release comes, and it is not available. Basically, we don't get a resolution from support.

This version is not very effective in our region.

The functionality of the product needs to improve the way it addresses zero-day threat levels.

We've been using the solution since 2003.

The stability isn't so great. We've had issues with it in general and have reached out to technical support for help. 

We have three to five people that use the product right now. In Pakistan, we have three offices in all three major cities and set up the solution for clients. We also use it in the offices.

Technical support is ineffective. Instead of dealing with the issue head-on, they tell us that the problem at hand will be fixed in the next release. They do not help at all.

However, our organization also offers technical support to our clients and we have a good experience - almost 20 years with McAfee and other solutions. We're good at troubleshooting.

We started using Symantec, then we adopted different technologies including McAfee and SSP, which includes Microsoft Defender. We keep changing based on the price structure in the market.

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's pretty simple and rather straightforward. 

That said, I didn't handle the installation myself. We had a team that did it.

We did the installation with the main product that integrated with McAfee Endpoint Security. Between the two, the installation took a whole day, however, just the McAfee section takes about two or so hours. 

You do need to pay for a license. It's not a good idea to try and get a pirated copy.

We've looked into and worked with McAfee, Trend Micro, Kaspersky, and Symantec.

We, at one time, were the official service partner for Symantec. We still provide support to the Pakistan market on behalf of Symantec.

While the solutions we use are on-premises, the latest upgraded services that we use are moving into the cloud, and the endpoints are on-premises. Now it's sort of a hybrid solution.

I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten.

I'd choose McAfee as maybe the third-best option, based on the experience I've had with it and the issues we've faced.

We are using McAfee Endpoint Security for network security.

There is a new feature where you can set thresholds for all the CPU consumption allowing for no consumption on the servers when the scans happen. It is a separate plugin or addon, and if we have it on all the virtual machines it automatically checks the resources, and based on that, it will schedule the scans. That is something that I have not seen in other antivirus solutions, such as Symantec.

The user interface could be improved by making it more user-friendly. There are multiple solutions and there is no clear line differentiating all of them. There is a centralized console where we manage everything but most of the administrators feel a little confused when it comes to managing multiple products from a single place.

In a future release, McAfee could improve by having a fewer resource-consuming agents. When you bundle up all the solutions with an agent, it becomes heavy for the endpoint to handle. This is one drawback that they should improve because some of their competitors, such as Trend Micro and Symantec both have low-consumption agents available.

McAfee has multiple solutions that can be combined together into a single product. There is no need to have this many solutions.

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for approximately 10 years.

McAfee Endpoint Security is stable. However, the way we implement it can impact stability sometimes. The stability can fluctuate because of the configuration that we have, or the different types of policy that we have on the endpoints. The configurations can be tweaked and tuned to make it becomes stable again.

The solution is scalable. We have approximately 80,000 endpoints on a single console. If we wanted to increase the number of endpoints it can scale higher.

The support from McAfee is far better than other vendors, such as Trend Micro and Symantec.

I have previously used Symantec and Trend Micro.

The initial setup for an experienced administrator should be easy. The setup can also be easy if you follow the very detailed guide which they call the KB guide that they provide. You can receive good support from the professional services team from McAfee. That is how many organizations usually do the initial setup.

I would advise others that are wanting to implement McAfee Endpoint Security to initially use help from the professional service team at McAfee, it will help a lot by making sure they do all the scalability and enviroment requirements. Additionally, they can ask questions based on their expectation and receive suggestions and answers. As an alternative, if you have an experienced person who is well-versed with implementations then I would use them, if not, I would always recommend using the professional service team at McAfee.

I rate McAfee Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

We use McAfee Endpoint Security as a solution for workstations and laptops.

Some of McAfee Endpoint Security's main features are it has benefits over normal conventional antivirus solutions because it works much faster. 

The solution learns which piece of software is running on the computer and compares it to a white list or black list database, if it is on the white list it allows the application and if it is on the black it does not.

McAfee Endpoint Security uses fewer computer resources than many competitors making it less of a burden on the performance of the computer. 

We have had some of our clients not happy with McAfee Endpoint Security because it blocks some of the applications they are trying to use. They should make it easier to unblock applications.

In a future release, McAfee Endpoint Security and all other endpoint solutions should reduce the number of resources needed to run their solution, such as hard drive space and CPU processing. The fewer resources the solution uses the better the performance of the hosting computer will have.

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for approximately 15 years.

The solution is stable.

McAfee Endpoint Security is cloud-based making it scalable.

We have approximately 100,000 users using the solution in my organization.

I can log into the McAfee portal and get support. We have not had any problem with the support and we have never had an interruption or a case of software failing.

The installation was very easy and quick. It only takes a few minutes.

We can do the implementation of the solution. Customers can do it by themself or in a corporate environment it can be pushed from the central server to each individual computer.

The maintenance of the solution is done by an outside vendor.

For each computer that is connected to the server McAfee charges us for each computer based on our license agreement.

We are in the process of moving away from McAfee Endpoint Security and replacing it with Cylance.

The solution is great by itself. However, it is important how management is organized within the company and how quick of response the teams can apply white list and other security measures.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate McAfee Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.