Mandiant Advantage Security Validation vs. Trellix Endpoint Security ENS

It is well-suited to larger enterprise environments and less well-suited to small businesses. You need some level of maturity to be able to fully utilize this tool, but overall it is fairly easy to get fully up and running within the environment, which is really nice. Well-suited if you have the budget for it and it saves on staff time to perform these functions. Not well-suited if you don't have a good budget in-place for your environment size.

Incentivized

During the pandemic all our users worked remotely that was challenging from security perspective, so we had to deploy the endpoint protection system with cloud based monitoring server. By doing that we were able to keep safety for users workspaces even though some of them did not connect to VPN for a long time

Incentivized

• Testing of security controls
• Mitigation of Risk
• Return of investment

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

• Portal / Dashboard
• Integration across tools
• System resources efficiency

Incentivized

• My biggest flak with McAfee Endpoint Security is that it is quite resource-intensive. It does tend to make the system a little slow. You get security at the expense of your machine's speed.
• Even though the drive encryption makes the system more secure, it takes a lot of time to first enter the very long password, and then for it to decrypt the whole machine. This sometimes clashes with Windows update and causes a lot of complications which leads to boot loops.

Incentivized

The product is easy to use, it is a useful tool, and has good support.

Incentivized

So below is my breakdown, Pro's: Centralized Management, Comprehensive Protection and customization. Con's: Initial cost

Incentivized

The support is pretty good, and I haven't had any issues with getting the highest quality technical support when there are issues. Tech support representatives that I have dealt with know the product quite well and have solved many issues that I have had with the product in the past. The only issue I have with support is that it can be quite expensive.

Incentivized

There are many parameters which are the differentiator between mandiant and Cymulate but some of the key differentitors are listed below: 1) Manpower costs are less and justified as compared to Cymulate 2) Better technologies innovation 3) Good reputation in market 4) Good cummulative man hour experience Also, they are in the market from last 20 years and they have a huge client base.

Incentivized

We only selected McAfee because we are already using ESET NOD32 for the protection of our desktops and laptops. We didn't want to use the same software for our servers so we chose McAfee instead. I personally like ESET Smart Security better than McAfee when deploying it on a desktop or laptop because I think it protects the PC better. When it comes to web protection, policy updates, etc., McAfee is the better choice and that's why we deployed it on our servers.

Incentivized

• Help data-driven and informed decision making.
• Improve company security postures.
• Visualization

Incentivized

• This tool helped us in delegating the asset safety responsibility to the client level by 80%, leaving 20% for the management console.
• With a decent pricing, the benefits are slightly above expectations. The ROI is good.
• But, considering most of the malware comes from internet, with a good email security appliance and next gen firewall in place, the online security alerts are now redundant. It could be something that can be termed as overkill on the budget.

Incentivized