We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"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."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"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's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"This is stable and scalable."
"The live terminal is probably the best thing ever. It gives you the access to get straight onto any machine."
"It's very stable. I've never experienced downtime for the ASM console or ASM core."
"Their XDR agent and their behavioral indicators of compromise (BIOC) are pretty nice. Their managed threat hunting is also pretty nice. They also have WildFire, which is a service for actively looking for malware. It's quite useful."
"Its interface and pricing are most valuable. It is better than other vendors in terms of security."
"The initial setup is pretty easy."
"One of the main benefits of the solution is its intelligence to correlate the events into an incident."
"They did what they said. This solution could apply to any scenario."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to rapidly detect certain hardware files."
"It has a feature called Isolation. If a device is compromised, we can connect it to our SOC, and no one would be able to access it. This way we can limit the damage to the network while we are investigating."
"The investigation and forensic analysis have been most helpful."
"The activation of features within ENS and the collection of threats into a single console is a strong point."
"The exploit guard and malware protection features are very useful. The logon tracker feature is also very useful. They have also given new modules such as logout backup, process backup. We ordered these modules from the FireEye market place, and we have installed these modules. We are currently exploring these features."
"We have a cloud-based instance, so we can deploy all our configurations through the cloud. That's the beauty of FireEye."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"I found the initial setup to be easy."
"The technical support services are good."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"The support needs improvement."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"The dashboard is the area that needs to improve so that we can have the ability to drill down without having to go elsewhere to verify results."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks can improve mobile integration to allow access to the console."
"The product's pricing needs improvement. They could provide more discounts. Additionally, the dashboard and control panel could be enhanced."
"The installation should be easier and the Palo Alto pre-sales and sales teams should have more information on the product because they don't know what they are selling."
"I don't like that they have different types of licenses. For example, if users select a license, they think they will have all the platforms they need to improve their network or security. But after some time, Palo Alto Networks changed their licensing, and some of the features that, for example, were free at the beginning now have a cost. I think the integration can be improved. For example, a lot of tools are just integrated through APIs."
"It's not an ideal choice for smaller businesses, as you need a minimum of 200 endpoints to even use the solution at all."
"It's more focused on network communication. If a customer wants to increase the level of protection and start working with documents, it's impossible to integrate these features into the system. It's more of a communication-oriented system than a content security-oriented system."
"I would like to see them include NDR (Network Detection Response)."
"McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve by an overall simplification of the solution."
"The solution needs to work on memory consumption. It is too high."
"One suggestion is they should reduce the constant notifications. Whenever I open my laptop, there are too many notifications from McAfee, and it gets annoying."
"I would like to see more automation."
"We'd like better UI on the management screen."
"I hope the solution can be used in cloud systems going forward."
"Impacts performance of the servers quite negatively."
"The email protection isn't efficient enough, and I'd like to see DLP features in the next release."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 80 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. 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 Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Symantec Endpoint Security and Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Fortinet FortiClient. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
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.