Deep Security's most valuable features are antivirus and host intrusion detection.
Deep Security's biggest shortcoming is its reporting.
I've been using Deep Security for about two or three years.
Deep Security is pretty solid.
Deployment took a week or two because we didn't know what we were doing. But once we got it up, it's not like I had to install it multiple times. But if I did, it wouldn't be that bad. Deep Security is pretty low maintenance. It patches itself then downloads all the new buyer signatures, the common vulnerabilities, and everything like that. So it pretty much takes care of itself. However, when we're patching everything else, it could knock one of the agents offline. So we have to deal with that aspect a little bit.
I'm not sure about the exact price, but it's reasonable and competitive. Compared to its competitors, you get a lot of bang for your buck. This was the way to go. There aren't any hidden costs. Everything was straight-up. However, it has a built-in malware detector that sends you alerts, but you need someone to monitor and respond to that. You need an incident response team, and Trend Micro Has a service for that called XDR. So if you want that monitoring service, you have to pay extra.
I would rate Trend Micro Deep Security nine out of 10. It met all our requirements, and Trend Micro provided us with a lot of help getting it set up. I would almost give it a 10, to be honest, but there is some room for improvement with the reporting. For someone implementing Deep Security, I would advise them to pay attention to their kernel numbers. But then again, if we were using Red Hat Linux, Deep Security would be so seamless. Sometimes the kernel versions get out of sync, but as long as you stick to the standards, it's seamless. Once you deviate, the mileage may vary.