We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)."The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"I like the centralized console and the predictive analysis it does of malware. It is very stable and also scalable."
"We've had a significant increase in blocking with a decrease in false positives, because it's looking at how the files work, not just a list of files that it's been told to look for."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks should be a stable solution."
"They did what they said. This solution could apply to any scenario."
"The behavior-based detection feature is valuable."
"Provides behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection."
"The stability of the solution is very good. We have about 100 users on it right now, and we use it twice a week."
"The initial setup is pretty easy."
"For us, the primary goal is protection on the web, and that's extremely important. We're not using any of the other services at this time. The web part is key to the success of the organization. It gives us the ability to protect. It can isolate. It opens the session in an isolated format so that the code isn't running locally. It is running over in the Menlo environment, not in ours. It is not running on the local computer, whereas if you were to go to a normal website, it would run Java or something else on the local machine and potentially execute the malicious code locally. So, it does give us that level of protection."
"It has reduced security events to follow up on. While it is not 100%, there has been probably a 90% or more reduction. We were getting hit left, right, and center constantly from people browsing the Internet and hitting bad websites. It was not just bad websites that were stood up to be malicious, but good sites that were compromised."
"Accessing the internet with a proxy from anywhere is the most valuable feature. It ensures that users are only able to browse legitimate websites. If they happen to go to a legitimate website with a malicious payload, the isolation feature will take care of that."
"The fact that it is a cloud proxy solution is another feature we like. For example, if you acquire a new company, you can use it to protect that new company without the need to install anything physically on their networks."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"Detections could be improved."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"It would be good if they could make an exception for applications. Sometimes, it can be a bit of a challenge to make exceptions for certain applications that have been used as rogue."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR does not detect malicious activity like in other anti-virus solutions like Trend Micro and Windows with Cisco."
"We would also like to have advanced tech protection and email scanning."
"The connection to the internet has not performed as expected."
"Currently, we are monitoring all USB drives and ports but we would like to improve our device control capabilities."
"There's an overall lack of features."
"It'll help if customization was easier."
"The solution should force customers to integrate with network traffic to see the full benefits of XDR."
"In the best of all worlds, we wouldn't have to make any exceptions. However, that is a big ask because a lot of that depends on how websites are constructed. For example, there are some very complex, application-oriented sites that we end up making exceptions for. It is really not that big an issue for us to make the exceptions. We feel like we are doing that without a huge impact on our security posture, but we do have to make some exceptions for complex sites, e.g., mostly SaaS-type sites and applications."
"The user monitoring could still be improved."
"Currently, I don't have a good way to see which of my rules are being used in the access control lists. I have numerous entries, but are they all still needed? A report that would show me my list of who is allowed and whether we're actually using it would be useful because I can then go clean up my list. It would be easier to manage. We would eliminate the vulnerability of unused services."
"We are now transitioning to another solution. The main reason for that is that managing all of the exceptions and troubleshooting all of the issues our users have had connecting to the internet has become too significant in terms of workload, compared to what we hope we will have with another solution."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 80 reviews while Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is ranked 19th in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 4 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "Perfect correlation and XDR capabilities for network traffic plus endpoint security". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway writes "Secures users wherever they are and enable us to inspect SSL traffic, but we encountered too many issues". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Symantec Endpoint Security and Trellix Endpoint Security, whereas Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Talon, Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.