We use Vision One to detect to detect and respond to malware incidents. With endpoints (Apex One/Cloud One Workload Security), network (Deep Discovery Inspector) and Office365 (Cloud Email and Collaboration Security).

The environment is complex, distributed in more than +100 locations. Some locations are just offices, some others are industrial facilities with ICS and SCADA. Besides Windows, we deal with a lot of operating systems, including Solaris on SPARC. And our users are diverse, with lots of employees roaming around the country.

With CREM, we tackle important use cases around identity protection and risk management in general. Identification, prioritization, and remediation.

The full stack of Vision One has delivered what "SIEM 2.0" couldn't deliver. The capability to monitor threats and discover attack vectors before they are exploited and across all our workspace (on-prem, IaaS, PaaS and SaaS). We have invested well over a million into SIEM during the last decade. A full ArcSight upgrade and then a Splunk migration assisted with a large MSSP. Vision One is still ahead at a fraction of the cost.

Going through a capable, single-vendor solution was necessary, given our small team. Choosing the best solutions for every task and building all the integrations was not an option.

Vision One is much more than just EDR for us; it is a threat intelligence platform and a SOAR too. And even with the limited capabilities in this area, we find ways to tackle challenges our MSSP and SOC haven't been able to accomplish on a very large budget.

I like everything. The most valuable feature is how the stack fully integrates all components of a solution. Then, integrations with third parties will be provided.

As an example, I am capable of sending a suspicious file directly to my Deep Discovery Analyzer appliance (a sandbox) while investigating a suspicious download/file interaction, and I can then quickly push the IOCs in the suspicious object lists to protect both managed endpoints, and the rest of the network too! Yes, you can push domains and IP addresses to Palo Alto through a Trend Micro Service Gateway, ensuring you can protect even what cannot receive an endpoint. And all this without writing a single line of code. The ease of use and ease of deployment for use cases like this are my favourite features.

The SOAR features (Security Playbooks) are quite limited. At the moment, it is impossible to execute a simple piece of Python code that would pull or push something to an API, for example. While you can tackle some use cases, a SOAR from another vendor is still a must-have.

To assist with complex use case integrations, having all the data from the SIEM inside XDR would be great, too. That's where the market is moving with solutions like Falcon Logscale and Cortex XSIAM. Pivoting from XDR to Splunk or vice-versa can be time-consuming during incidents.

I was actually an early beta tester of the Apex One Endpoint Sensor before Vision One appeared in 2021. That would be three solid years of using it.

Quite reliable. In the last three years, only one incident created memory leaks on Windows Servers. We didn't see too much impact (fortunately) as a workaround could be quickly provided.

Support is quite responsive when something does work well. However, we do pay for Premium support.

The scalability is really good.

My experience is generally good, but I have had the chance to deal with premium support. I'd say I get the support I expect for the price that I pay.

Although we have been dealing with other security vendors (McAfee, Symantec, Proofpoint, and more), Vision One was really our first EDR.

The initial setup was a breeze. It is realistically one of the strong points of the solution.

We implemented the solution in-house. Although with premium support, you do get a lot of help from Trend Micro if you ask for it. You'll be able to talk to actual experts.

It is very hard to quantify an ROI on a security product. It doesn't generate revenues, and you can't quantify the cost of incidents that didn't happen.

Product names are changing all the time. Lots of changes in the last three years. They introduced the concept of credits, too, which did not make anything easier.

It's also easy to underestimate the credits required with Cloud Email and Collaboration Security: people invited from third-party tenants will count.

The credit usage and allocation tool has been improving, at least.

We had a look at Carbon Black and CrowdStrike Falcon.

It's probably the best solution for a small team that cannot absorb the complexity of a multivendor solution. The ability to execute VS the cost is surprisingly good.

Vision One is the primary endpoint security product we use to protect our Macs and PCs. We also use the server product version, so it runs on my servers as well. We exclusively purchase Trend Micro's endpoint products. They have network and firewall products. We were using their email product until last month, and I ended up selecting a different provider. We stayed with them for the endpoint, but I moved off of them for the email product.

Vision One was a big deal to us immediately because we did not have context-aware before. We saw everything we had no idea was happening. It was a big deal three years ago.

It certainly reduces time to detect because a lot of the time, I didn't have it before. I didn't have that information until it gave it to me. The speed of response helps me know much more about what's happening quicker. They have some improvement to do in terms of automated remediation. It probably makes investigations 30 percent faster because of what it puts together.

When we purchased Vision One, what set it apart was that it wasn't a traditional signature-based antivirus. It's a process-aware solution that provides real-time protection. That was a big differentiator three years ago, but now it's a given that every AV provider should be doing that. It combines signature-based telemetry with behavioral awareness and a detection-based solution, making it a good solution for us.

When we bought it three years ago, it was separate. Apex One handled cloud and web app security, and Vision One handled cloud and server workload protection. Now, they call it Vision One. The server stuff is still separate, but it is the same now. When we purchased it, they told us we'd have a single console, but that took about two and a half years. Finally, there is a single pane of glass.

One of the things that made me the craziest was that we had too many tools or one tool that I had to log into five different ways. One of the frustrations is you have both legacy and newer detection methods. Not being able to fully investigate it in a single portal was a huge pain.

They need to stop changing Vision One once a week. They're in a hurry to change things so badly and so fast that I can't find where stuff is half the time, which is a challenge sometimes.

I've given one piece of feedback to their product guys. One thing that they're trying to make is a SIEM. It's a product where you input all the logs from your tools, and it creates additional insights into how things look. They've been kind of playing the "me too" game on that, even though that's not what I bought the product for.

They have a new gateway where I can take my firewall of email logs and send it over there. In theory, it's supposed to do a more comprehensive evaluation of all my stuff to improve that risk index score. I'm not impressed with it, and I've told them as much. I feel if you're good at something, you should keep working on that and not try to be all the things to all the people.

I bought a different email solution even though it would have been 10 times easier to just stay with their email solution because they aren't great at it. They are great at other things, but they're playing the "me too" game with some of their products. Their competitors do this, so they should be doing this, too. They need to pick a product and keep being good at that. If they're going to roll new things out, they should do it but do it right.

They have a button to isolate an endpoint because it looks bad, but it doesn't usually work. I've had no chance to argue with the product guys to show them examples of how their button doesn't work. You think it does, but it doesn't work in a real environment. That can be a challenge sometimes.

I can see in the data showing what is a false positive. But it doesn't save me time helping them figure out how to fix the problem in their engine. It can help me identify it as a false positive, but it doesn't apply that consistently. It will ignore the false positive for that device, but if they start detecting a false positive on Apple devices, I have eight thousand Apple devices and get 8,000 alerts. I can tell that specific false positive, but it doesn't learn from that particularly well.

We use the executive dashboards, but I don't find them particularly useful. One is the ability to customize. That has gotten a little better, and it'll be better in the future. Most of what they have on there are data points that are generic and not particularly actionable. That's why it's called an executive dashboard. Executives want to see if we are secure, but it's hard for me to find out why our attack surface risk went down by x percentage. I don't know. It says that on the dashboard, but it doesn't give me specific details about why.

I find it confuses my executives, and it's not useful for me because it doesn't give me things to work on. It will give me generic things on the executive dashboard like you have a thousand accounts with an old password. Those are big generic things, but I also can't tell it that our password policy is different from what your automatic detection model means, and I don't have a problem with that, so quit lowering my risk score.

The risk score is useless. In theory, it's based on the random intelligence they're getting from their various customers. I'm in K-12 education, so they have a decent amount of K-12 customers, but it's a subset, and the baseline of what's common in K-12 education is not the same. There's not enough data to make that particularly clean or useful. Vision One is not custom, and that's part of my beef. That index score is based on whatever random report they're looking at from their data sources at any given moment in time. It's nice, but I'd rather have one that's based on your particular circumstances. Instead, it's saying that the number one attack threat surface for school districts is email phishing. It's too generic.

I have used Trend Vision One for three and a half years.

Vision One has been less impactful toward my endpoints when scanning than the previous solution.

Vision One's resource usage is starting to creep up compared to three years ago. They used to focus on making their agent lightweight. I don't necessarily think all of this is their fault, but their agents are starting to suck more resources than they used to. Part of it is that the threat landscape has changed, and you need to look at it in additional ways, and it is a strain on the servers. They've gotten really bad about that on the servers.

I rate Trend Micro support three out of 10. Their technical support is challenging. The support's good once you get to the second layer, but they don't read what you write. They auto-respond by telling us to give them the logs.

Every time, I need to send them a written statement with my product license ID and that I'm the contact authorized to do a support ticket. About 75 percent of the time when I open a support ticket, I immediately email my customer service satisfaction manager person with the ticket number so they can help move it along.

I was using Sophos three years ago. I've looked at many of the feature sets out there, and they might be 80 percent of what Vision One has, and some might be better, but Vision One is price-competitive.

Deploying Vision One was a pain because of the automated removal tool. In the antivirus world, they try to make it difficult to uninstall people's defenses because that's what an attacker would do. However, all the competitors are making tools to uninstall their competitors' tools when they win business. That's directly counterintuitive to the whole point of the antivirus.

We went through a process of trying to do this in an automated fashion to replace the old product, and Trend didn't quite do it right. Trend had a real struggle toget their own tool to fix it.

We use it as a SaaS, so we have a gateway integrator on the server on-site, but the product sits on all my endpoints. In that aspect, it's on-prem, but all the processing, reporting, and everything else happens in the cloud. We had it 75 percent deployed in 45 days. That last 25 percent took us another four months.

I work at an underfunded public school district. I need a whole team, but there is only me. I used to have a security analyst until that position moved around, and
my ability to use the product has been drastically reduced. I miss much of the value of what I'm paying for because I don't have enough staff to use it. I wouldn't need more than one if that was their whole job.

It's not a totally elegant solution that always feeds and cares for itself. We have to check if it's doing its updates properly. It doesn't tell us, for example, that 2,000 devices haven't been updated or checked in. I have to go proactively looking at it.

Vision One's pricing is extremely competitive. They're probably the lowest-cost provider that has this feature set.

I rate Vision One seven out of 10. Make sure you learn the 90 percent of stuff in there that you didn't know you bought and preestablish an escalation contact for support tickets.

Trend Vision One functions as our XDR solution. I spend considerable time within it conducting reconnaissance on any security incidents requiring investigation. This tool allows me to quickly search for information that might be difficult to locate using our other tools.

We implemented Trend Vision One to improve our security posture by creating multiple layers of protection. This tool addresses security gaps our existing solutions, like Defender, may miss, providing deeper insights into potential threats.

We have implemented the product on both our cloud environment and endpoints. While we utilize a different Trend product for email, we also leverage Trend for this purpose. Trend's complete coverage is invaluable, as it centralizes data that would otherwise be difficult to locate, and its robust search function has been instrumental in our decision to continue using the platform. Although our organization is always exploring alternatives, the all-in-one nature of this solution has proven highly effective for our needs.

Vision One offers centralized oversight and control across our protective layers. It provides valuable insights into our various Trend applications, though its visibility into other layers is understandably limited. This limitation isn't a concern at this time.

Vision One has significantly improved our efficiency. For example, we recently faced a critical situation where a rule change on a client-server posed a potential security breach. Using Vision One, we quickly identified the employee responsible for the shift and resolved the incident without an extensive investigation. This would have been highly challenging without the tool, as determining the culprit would have been much more difficult.

We've been using the risk index feature to try to chip away at the risks within the environment and identify the vulnerabilities that need to be prioritized because that's been one area that has been more invisible to us with the other tools.

Vision One offers a valuable new perspective on our risk profile. While we receive reports from other tools like Nexus IQ, Vision One's unique risk classification and ranking system allows us to prioritize issues differently. This enables more informed decision-making as we can identify risks that other tools might underestimate. We've fully leveraged Vision One's benefits since our team's formation over two years ago. Though the tool existed previously, its impact was limited due to the absence of a dedicated team focused on its utilization.

It's able to detect things that other tools don't detect. We use a layered approach, so those tools have found stuff it hasn't detected. But that's to be expected. That's the goal of using the layered approach to it. But it's helpful because it catches things we might have been unaware of. Additionally, it might rank things differently than the other tools, and that's the same for this piece. And that can be very helpful for us to catch things we might have otherwise missed because it gives us that extra detail.

Trend Micro XDR has significantly reduced the time needed to detect and respond to threats. It offers capabilities that other security solutions lack, enabling us to address challenges innovatively. Additionally, built-in features such as insights and endpoint protection provide valuable tools that enhance our security posture compared to other systems.

Despite having a fifteen-year career in cybersecurity, I joined this role with limited hands-on experience. However, I quickly became proficient with Trend Vision One through self-directed learning, and my team soon recognized my expertise in the tool, making it a positive experience overall.

The Workbench feature is fantastic. It is so helpful to have something that pulls all the data into one visual representation of the events.

Vision One generates numerous false positives, forcing unnecessary investigations and highlighting a need for improved filtering options. A recurring false positive in our environment cannot be safely filtered, preventing us from ignoring it without risking overlooking genuine threats. This issue arises from a script that renames computers, which behaves suspiciously like malware but lacks a unique identifier within Trend for precise filtering. We cannot exclude the entire script due to potential exploitation by attackers who could embed malicious code within it, bypassing our security measures. While this scenario requires a targeted attack, the sensitive nature of our client's data, including threats from nation-state actors, necessitates a cautious approach to avoid compromising our security posture.

We want the ability to download and inspect emails from clients' mailboxes. Microsoft's platform supports this functionality, and we possess the necessary license. However, some clients lack the required license, prompting us to recommend Trend. If we could directly access and inspect client emails, it would eliminate the need to sell additional licenses to those clients, streamlining the process.

I have been using Trend Vision One for over two years.

Trend Vision One is stable.

As we've added employees and removed employees and added servers and removed servers, I haven't had to think about the scalability of Vision One. It has been very smooth.

We had a script that was not right and kept triggering false positives. I had reached out for help with that. The help I got took a lot of time to get responses. And in the end, they closed out the ticket I had opened without resolving it. I also found the communication experience to be rather frustrating. My biggest complaint about my experience with Trend has been the support. There's a lot of good to be said, but there's room for improvement in the support. The people were very polite, so I'm not giving them a five because that goes a long way for me. Having support that is snippy makes the experience significantly worse. So, I am grateful for that part.

We used a Microsoft XDR in conjunction with Trend Vision One. The main pros for Vision One are that the interface is typically a lot easier and a lot less confusing.

The overall experience of the interface is a lot more positive. The details I can pull out of Trend are much better than I can typically pull out from Microsoft. I'm able to get results that Microsoft doesn't seem to gather. The cons are that it's in such flux right now because they're moving all their other products into the Vision One console, which can sometimes make it a bit confusing.

It can also mean that we're unable to access the tools we previously did as rapidly. For example, many of the Apex One stuff is now within Vision One. So we had to relearn how to do that, which cost us time during security incidents. And Microsoft does change things, but they typically change things by adding extra bloat. So that ends up being a con for Trend compared to Microsoft.

While I cannot confirm the specific return on investment for Vision One without firsthand data, I expect it to be positive, given our organization's tendency to quickly discontinue partnerships that fail to deliver value.

I would rate Trend Vision One eight out of ten. There is room for improvement, but with the tools I've used, Vision One is one of the better.

I don't do much regarding the maintenance of Trend Vision One, but I also know that because I get emails about stuff that goes down, it's relatively low maintenance compared to other tools.

We have Trend Vision One deployed across multiple locations internationally. Because the number fluctuates, we have roughly 1,500 to 2,000 users at any given time. Three people on our network team use Vision One. We have also used Trend products, other than Vision One, for a couple of our clients, which would expand those numbers significantly.

My experience with Trend Vision One has taught me many valuable details, and I strongly recommend that new users carefully review the provided documentation.

I primarily use the solution to prevent attacks.

It's good for detecting malware and anomalies. We use it on our endpoints.

The user interface is very good. Everything is all on one single platform.

With this product, we get centralized visibility and management across all of our protection layers. With a central platform, we don't have to look around across different websites or platforms. We can go right on the portal and manage things. It also helps us reduce the learning curve. We can manage and monitor products from the same place instead of learning different platforms. It's also helped us increase efficiency.

We have made use of the executive dashboard. It greatly increased visibility. We get a risk management view and metrics that help us narrow down and find issues. It helps us reduce risks. The risk index feature gives us a score to help us in our security goals. With it, we know what's the baseline or standard, so now we know what we need to do in order to meet the standards out there in the industry. We can see everything we need to in one glance.

It's kept up to date and is consistently improving. This helps us protect our environment.

The patch management has been very useful. They help recommend what needs to be installed.

We leverage the attack surface risk management capabilities. It shows the entire incident, including how it happened. We can use the information when we're doing forensics.

We've been able to reduce our mean time to detect and mean time to respond. What would previously take us two to three hours to fix, we can do in one hour or even half an hour. We've also been able to reduce the amount of time we spend investigating false positives.

We'd like to see more use of AI around analytics and controls.

I've been using the solution for five years.

The stability is good; I'd rate it eight out of ten.

We're a small-to-medium-sized company. We have it deployed to less than 5,000 users.

I'm not sure of the scalability. It works for us and our company size.

Support is okay. They could be more responsive and could provide more communication channels.

We did not previously use a different solution.

I'm more of an end-user. I do not handle the installation aspect. The deployment was done a long time ago.

The tool does not require much maintenance.

I'm not familiar with the exact pricing of the solution. My understanding is the licensing is reasonable.

I'm an end-user and customer.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It has very good management and monitoring benefits.