Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. Trellix Endpoint Security ENS

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (formerly Microsoft Defender ATP) is a holistic, cloud delivered endpoint security solution that includes risk-based vulnerability management and assessment, attack surface reduction, behavioral based and cloud-powered next generation protection, endpoint detection and response (EDR), automatic investigation and remediation, managed hunting services, rich APIs, and unified security management.
$2.50
per user/per month
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) solutions apply proactive threat intelligence and defenses across the entire attack lifecycle to keep organizations safer and more resilient.N/A
Pricing
Microsoft Defender for EndpointTrellix Endpoint Security ENS
Editions & Modules
Academic
$2.50
per user/per month
Standalone
$5.20
per user/per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Microsoft Defender for EndpointTrellix Endpoint Security ENS
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Microsoft Defender for EndpointTrellix Endpoint Security ENS
Considered Both Products
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
Chose Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers strong integration with Microsoft 365 and Azure services, which provide a unified security experience. While McAfee Trellix is known for solid antivirus, Microsoft Defender excels in integration in the ecosystem.
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Chose Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS interfaces better with other tools and is simpler to use. provides wider endpoint protection and more centralized control than SentinelOne's automatic response. Trellix Endpoint Security ENS preserves McAfee's dependability while offering newer …
Chose Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
At the time we took the decision all other products seemed to be complicated in usage and licensing. Trellix was very simple in all the aspects: licensing, usage, support.
It also was very simple to deploy, setup and manage.
Product interface was simple to understand and even …
Features
Microsoft Defender for EndpointTrellix Endpoint Security ENS
Endpoint Security
Comparison of Endpoint Security features of Product A and Product B
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
8.7
77 Ratings
3% above category average
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
8.3
15 Ratings
2% below category average
Anti-Exploit Technology8.874 Ratings8.113 Ratings
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)9.176 Ratings8.114 Ratings
Centralized Management8.876 Ratings9.015 Ratings
Hybrid Deployment Support7.210 Ratings7.98 Ratings
Infection Remediation9.074 Ratings8.114 Ratings
Vulnerability Management8.671 Ratings8.012 Ratings
Malware Detection9.175 Ratings9.015 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Microsoft Defender for EndpointTrellix Endpoint Security ENS
Small Businesses
ThreatLocker
ThreatLocker
Score 9.4 out of 10
ThreatLocker
ThreatLocker
Score 9.4 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
BlackBerry Protect (CylancePROTECT)
BlackBerry Protect (CylancePROTECT)
Score 9.1 out of 10
BlackBerry Protect (CylancePROTECT)
BlackBerry Protect (CylancePROTECT)
Score 9.1 out of 10
Enterprises
BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management
BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management
Score 9.9 out of 10
BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management
BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management
Score 9.9 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Microsoft Defender for EndpointTrellix Endpoint Security ENS
Likelihood to Recommend
8.9
(136 ratings)
9.0
(26 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.4
(10 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.7
(11 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
Availability
9.1
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
9.1
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.0
(7 ratings)
5.0
(6 ratings)
Implementation Rating
7.3
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Configurability
8.2
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Product Scalability
9.1
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Microsoft Defender for EndpointTrellix Endpoint Security ENS
Likelihood to Recommend
Microsoft
It is well integrated with the Microsoft Admin center providing a quick way to find everything you're looking for. However, if there is a problem that needs addressed, you may have to click through a few more pages to find the solution. It will definitely let you know what's going on in your environment.
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
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.
Read full review
Pros
Microsoft
  • One, it's crazy lightweight, so compared to some of the competitors that we also have used with our security services, it's really lightweight and so I don't have a lot of overhead on the system that it's running on.
  • It does really fantastic PowerShell integration.
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
  • 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.
Read full review
Cons
Microsoft
  • So the fact that Defender for Endpoint still works with signatures is actually, I don't know, a little difficult for us because, I mean, since Microsoft trusts those signatures, you can easily inject code. And we've done it many times. To show that you can inject code through vulnerabilities like CV 2013, 99, and 33 but still keep the signature. So because of the trust of those signatures, the malware just kind of slides into the environment without Defender knowing. That's the first part. The second part is that the behavioral analysis is not precisely its Prime. It's not Defender's best capability for endpoints. So, Defender does not identify all behaviors considered by other EDRs in the market.
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
  • 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.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Microsoft
Cost add-ons for Security features is nickel and diming the process to keep pace with cybercrime. Limited Education budgets require us to be more pro-active in finding cost-effective measures to protect our devices, staff and students. Defender is a strong, well-featured product that is pricing itself out of the education market
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
No answers on this topic
Usability
Microsoft
It offers multiple security features and integrates well with Microsoft ecosystems. A workflow for threat detection, investigation, automated remediation, and a centralized dashboard is an added advantage. This application is mainly designed for experienced users; new users may feel challenged.
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
So below is my breakdown, Pro's: Centralized Management, Comprehensive Protection and customization. Con's: Initial cost
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
Microsoft
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint chugs along just fine no matter what we throw at it and what systems it's running on. It doesn't take up a lot of resources either, so that's welcomed.
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
No answers on this topic
Performance
Microsoft
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is easy on memory and resources on clients.
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
Microsoft
The first time I tried to onboard my macOS endpoints to MDE I struggled for quite a bit. I had to reach out to Microsoft's MDE support team. The tech was very helpful in walking me through the steps during a screen share session
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
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.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
Microsoft
Deployment was handled by our team here and everything went pretty smoothly. We did have a few hiccups in our test group, but that only took a bit to get ironed out.
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
Microsoft
Defender is far easier to deploy and manage than Sophos and tends to work without as many issues. The threat assessment portal provides an in-depth view of the organization's security posture, whereas Sophos only shows the patching status of the PCs. We did need Intune to get many of the control features (disabling USB drives) that Sophos offered out of the box.
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
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
Read full review
Scalability
Microsoft
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is easily scaled from small orgs to giant enterprises.
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
Microsoft
  • Reduced incidents of security breaches lead to lower remediation costs and avoid potential financial losses and reputational damage.
  • Reduces the need for additional third-party security solutions and training, thereby lowering overall security management costs.
  • Increased efficiency and productivity of IT staff lead to better allocation of resources and cost savings.
  • Reduces the risk of fines and sanctions associated with non-compliance, ensuring business continuity and protecting revenue.
Read full review
Trellix (FireEye + McAfee)
  • 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.
Read full review
ScreenShots

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Screenshots

Screenshot of blocked activitiesScreenshot of Detects & respondsScreenshot of discovers vulnerabilityScreenshot of Eliminates blind spotsScreenshot of Risk management

Trellix Endpoint Security ENS Screenshots

Screenshot of The Monitoring workspace presents actionable endpoint threat detection without the noise.Screenshot of Automatically identify the key findings without requiring manual evaluation of each individual artifact.Screenshot of Visualization displays relationships and speeds analyst understanding.Screenshot of AI-guided investigations automatically provide answers to typical questions asked during a security incident and highlight the most relevant evidence.