Bitdefender GravityZone combines multiple security services into a single platform to reduce the cost of building a trusted environment for endpoints.
$284.99
per year 10 devices
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Score 8.0 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
Bitdefender GravityZone
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Editions & Modules
GravityZone Small Business Security
$284.99
per year 10 devices
GravityZone Business Security
$369.99
per year 10 devices
GravityZone Business Security Premium
$814.99
per year 10 devices
GravityZone Business Security Premium
Contact Sales
GravityZone Business Security Enterprise
Contact Sales
GravityZone XDR
Contact Sales
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Bitdefender GravityZone
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
5 device license purchase minimum. Discounts available for multi-year subscriptions. 1st year discounts available (up to 30% off displayed price).
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Bitdefender GravityZone
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Considered Both Products
Bitdefender GravityZone
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Bitdefender GravityZone
Bitdefender GravityZone was the best for both ease of use and cost. Their pricing model outweigh most others as its a very low cost per unit per month.
Bitdefender was more of a robust solution than Webroot. It offers many more granular configurations than the competition but also includes more complexity to get it all set up and find how to configure all the additional features.
Much better company and product. In my experience, we got completely ripped off when broadcom bought Symantec and were told our 3 year licenses are now only 1 year licenses with no refund. Also was a much more seamless install and has caught way more threats than symantec ever …
Bitdefender offered the largest number of tools with the smallest footprint of any providers we have tested and used. The cloud platform is very well thought out and will give us all the information we need very quickly. Resources required have been greatly reduced, both on …
I find that Bitdefender GravityZone is more resilient to attack than the Norton product. I've been out to too many machines that have been compromised with the Norton Antivirus product on them. I trust Bitdefender to protect the device effectively against threats better than …
I've a lot of experience with many EDR among the best in the market. In an incident response phase we usually test the malware detected against many EDR's and Bitdefender GravityZone is the only one that always detect the threat. Being constantly updated with the latest …
We found Bitdefender to be better. In our attempts to infect a test Windows 10 VM's we could not get around Bitdefender. Additionally, we have not had any complaints about performance once installed. That was not the case with Symantec.
I think these days all of the products are extremely quick at updating the definitions as soon as they come out. Bitdefender is no different. It updates and catches threats on our endpoints and alerts the user with a very visible pop-up warning. It also quarantines threats …
It's night and day between Kaspersky and Bitdefender [GravityZone]. We previously used Kaspersky both internally and throughout our customer base. It was a resource hog and allowed many threats to get through. It never updated properly and was in my opinion, a piece of junk. …
Bitdefender GravityZone beats all other competitors. It runs with a very small footprint, yet catches anything thrown at it. We will never change AV providers.
We tested many different antivirus programs before deciding to go with Bitdefender GravityZone. Bitdefender [GravityZone] caught numerous threats that made it through the other AVs. It also uses considerably fewer system resources than its competitors.
While most anti-virus/threat management software is highly effective, Bitdefender [GravityZone] consistently ranks as best in class when it comes to threat management. The [sheer] fact that of the nearly 100 computers I manage, not a single one has experienced a virus outbreak …
We were a Kaspersky shop for years. Kaspersky was a resource hog and it didn't even block half of what was thrown at it. We had more outbreaks and more end-user complaints in a year of Kaspersky then we have had in almost three years of Bitdefender.
We have not regretted moving to Bitdefender GravityZone. It's much easier to manage and the product is less noticeable on the machines it is installed. There are very little false positives and up till now we have not had any outbreaks of viruses in the company. They were …
I believe it’s pretty effective compared to others. Bitdefender GravityZone does have robust protection. Having used Carbon Black and Kaspersky, all solutions are pretty reliable and top tier.
We were using McAfee and it just caused issue after issue and so now with BD GZ we do not have to worry about machine lock up or even the issues of updates as BD keep the software updated with the latest information that we need to ensure our customer are protected.
They all seem to do a decent job at stopping attacks, but for the cost and features I felt I could not go wrong selecting Bitdefender while I was comparing the others.
Detection of the others is more basic and less layered. Also, the lack of add-on modules, especially EDR, is a deal breaker. Most of all, the centralized management with a cloud console is lacking and therefore hardware is required.
Very effective. As mentioned previously, the product just works. We have had no threats that were not taken care of by GravityZone. Previous alternatives had failed on a number of levels, requiring a lot of additional remediation/repair.
When compared to Trend Micro Worry Free Business Security software, Bitdefender GravityZone is just as good or better. We have not had any software or security issues while using either so it is difficult to say which one responds to and handles threats better. I do like both …
When it comes down to it, I feel that both Bitdefender GravityZone and Sophos achieve the same results, and that's what really matters. My personal opinion is that Sophos provides a much more robust console that makes a lot more sense when navigating. I've often gotten so lost …
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 …
All in one protection for endpoint devices, the data loss prevention, and adaptive threat protection is the best advantage against other competitors. The cost for the platform and service is very effective and efficient. The usage and capability of this software is very edge …
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 …
It has fewer false positive issues. It also provides more compatibility with a variety of different OS versions. The sensor installation is easy to use, update and maintain as well as the reporting capabilities that it can offer are more robust than the ones that other …
Compared to its competitors like Cisco, McAfee is cheaper. At the competitive pricing levels, McAfee Endpoint Security does a good job. Although it stacks up finely against decent priced solutions but it doesn't provide superior service if the price limit is scaled down or up. …
Compared to Endgame and AMP, McAfee Endpoint Security doesn't hold a candle to them when it comes to detecting/advanced identifying malware or zero days. Since Mcafee Endpoint Security is signature-based, it is way behind the curve with newer anti-malware tools that can focus …
We were using Microsoft Defender in the beginning as it was free and quite good. But as we got acquired by a large MNC, we were asked to switch to McAfee as we had to follow the company guidelines which takes data security very seriously and personally. I think the switch did …
The solution is already in place when I join the organization. I do not have any information on what other antivirus software they evaluated before decided to purchase McAfee Endpoint Security.
McAfee is a strong, if not strongest A/V solution in the endpoint security space. It's wide adoption and strong support and positive reviews from companies like Gartner and Forrester back it up.
If you have Cisco tools and equipment globally in place and just for the clients additionally McAfee you should have a deeper look. We wanted to install end-2-end security over all networks and hardware. This was a big point for Cisco. For a managed client team, Cisco is a step …
McAfee Endpoint Security has a better GUI, better pricing, stronger features, and agent deployment is much faster. Their firewall is extremely good, and for those reasons I would firmly recommend it over other solutions (Kaspersky, Symantec etc). Like I mentioned earlier, do …
McAfee Endpoint Security provides a single platform for Firewall, AV and web control. With the new console and integration between the components, threat detection is superior.
McAfee is a cheaper price point, however Kaspersky out performs McAfee in every category. We went with McAfee, because many of the team members in IT were familar with it, less training (short term), and lower cost (short term)
Advanced Threat Protection, or ATP in Office 365 was awful. Some attachments wouldn't be delivered at all while others took minutes and sometimes hours to be delivered after being scanned. It was causing us to lose business. FireEye processes attachments in less than 60 seconds …
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 …
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 …
It just works. I have seen multiple viruses and malware get past other antivirus software like TrendMicro, Webroot, and Kaspersky. Bitdefender GravityZone always catches what others miss. It has a very light footprint when it comes to system resources. The centralized management console is nice, but I prefer the console before they redesigned the UI.
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
The Gravity Zone console is quite easy to use, particularly if the person assigned to implement and deploy have a good understanding of how to make it work to get at the information needed.
The Dashboard is customizable to get at the information needed in one location.
Pushing tasks across the network is quite easy.
Having said the what is available in gravity zone, it is easy to see what devices have activity that frequently result in quarantines. This allows us to address "misuse" of our devices. Which brings me to my final point...
The policies can be set up to lock devices down with very strict rules (such as device locking) or with relaxed policies.
I wish we could access logs from the cloud-based product. Not just in a viewable sense but from a download so that we can scrape them for interesting strings.
Bitdefender needs to make it easier to export data from the web interface. As it stands now, it's a time-consuming copy and paste activity.
I would like for there to a notification service when someone encounters malware. For example, an email to our IT team when someone's Bitdefender quarantines a file.
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.
It works. I rely heavily on my vendors to provide a product that works, is easy to implement, and that they support. As well as be a decent value for the money
The console is easy to use, but has grown to have a lot of functionality. The only challenge is that all functions (even disabled and not installed ones) are shown. It would be great if only the functions that are active would be visible.
Yes its very available. The software continues to protect you even if you are offline. It constantly runs in the background and will check for updates again once back online.
The console is quite fast and responsive, and once you start to get used to it, it is easy to use and you can see the main dashboard status at a glance. You can then dig deeper into the individual Companies / Endpoint clients and check the status of each. The software itself is not heavy on system resources in each PC.
Support is an area Bitdefender has always struggled with. While their products work great, the GravityZone dashboard is very technical in nature. If you aren't IT inclined, it could be difficult to setup. While most times support is helpful, we tend to work with them over email because of their very thick accent, they are hard to understand over the phone.
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.
The trainer went through everything in the console an showed me what each setting did. If I had any questions on how to do something, he showed me where to go and how to do it. The trainer was very helpful and knowledgeable, and also professional and patient. Highly recommended.
The trainer went through everything in the console an showed me what each setting did. If I had any questions on how to do something, he showed me where to go and how to do it. The trainer was very helpful and knowledgeable, and also professional and patient. Highly recommended.
Bitdefender offered the largest number of tools with the smallest footprint of any providers we have tested and used. The cloud platform is very well thought out and will give us all the information we need very quickly. Resources required have been greatly reduced, both on Endpoints and in the day-to-day management of the product. We also gained Patch management and vulnerability scanning as part of the switch, which has enabled us to keep on top of updates, making the environment more secure.
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.
I give it this rating because one you have the console running, you can add or remove whole companies, add computer endpoints (and remove them), and easily create and deploy endpoint packages to the machines that need the software. Once installed, the software starts to report back to the Bitdefender servers and the number of active licences is then seen and billed.
Estimating the ROI with Bitdefender [GravityZone] is rather difficult. While there is an obvious cost to using Bitdefender [GravityZone] (via a monthly or yearly subscription fee for each device being protected), it is hard to estimate the cost of if a computer or computers become infected via a piece of malware. In the best-case scenario, a single computer becomes infected with a relatively benign piece of malware that can be removed after infection; in a worst-case scenario, an entire infrastructure is infected by ransomware completely crippling an organization.
Since implementing Bitdefender [GravityZone] across multiple organizations, not a single one has [added] a malware outbreak.
The initial cost of setup and the cost of maintenance is more than worth it for if nothing more than peace of mind.
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.