Jamf Protect vs. Trellix Endpoint Security ENS

The main reason we went with Jamf Protect was because we wanted a dedicated macOS security endpoint. Is was easy to implement and migrate over from our previous endpoint provider. As a university we have lab macOS devices that multiple users use. So we have Jamf Protect profiles that block the use of external drives and other other profiles that allow it. We different user accounts requiring different access this can get a bit messy when deploying the config profiles at login for each user that signs in.

Incentivized

It provides great web security and will protect your devices against viruses and malware when paired with other security software and hardware. For instance, we have multiple layers of security set up so if McAfee misses something then one of our other barriers will catch the infection or intrusion before it reaches the network. I would not suggest using this product as a standalone agent because I do not think it will be as effective when working by itself. The dashboard also makes it convenient to manage devices, policies, and settings from wherever you are so it's an ideal solution for any IT department to use. I would just suggest using something else as a backup so your network isn't left vulnerable.

Incentivized

• Low resource use Protected Agent - stops tampering with agent and is not a resource hog
• Managed and custom Analytics - along with the out of the box Analytics provided by JAMF, admins can also set up their own to focus on areas of concern eg NISTcompliance items
• Vendor support - support is very responsive and knowledgeable

Incentivized

• Provides high fidelity alerting.
• Allows CSOC analysts to perform forensic triage and alert investigations through containment from a single pane of glass.
• Provides alert telemetry across on-disk and in-memory attacks.
• Supports many additional 'bolt-on' modules to provide additional alert context or capabilities.

Incentivized

• The integration with Jamf Pro has come a long way but could still be a bit more "one stop" vs two tools and two dashboards.

Incentivized

• The amount of false detections especially the negative ones needed to be reduced.
• It requires more optimization. It tends to make the PCs slower.
• It almost doesn't have the ability to heal. This is very important as we need our sensitive data to be recoverable.
• It doesn't have any free scanning functionality. Our users using personal machines cannot scan in case of an incident. This could be added like Malwarebytes.

Incentivized

The support of product was very good when we initially implemented the solution. We were getting fats replies and could see the customer approach. After a while the level of support was not following the SLA's and the replies were getting very confusing and late.

Incentivized

In some aspects, Jamf Protect was far superior to the others mentioned above. The only downside I can see is that it is only macOS which could be a problem for hybrid environments.

Incentivized

Unlike Trellix Endpoint Security Symantec Endpoint provides less information about events on the user side. Trellix give an opportunity to see information about virus detection on a user machine as quick as it possible, so we were able to catch the signs of virus propagation early and prevent the spread of damage

Incentivized

• Better detection of malware reducing downtime and risk to network
• Easy to implement
• Can be a bit of a steep learning curve in general

Incentivized

• From an auditing standpoint, we can show that our workstations/servers are protected.
• Even though it cant identify more advanced/targeted malware, it is still good to identify the more obvious malware which occurs daily in my enterprise.
• Since it can be easily deployed, the products can easily get deployed on all systems in the environment for optimal anti-malware protection.

Incentivized