Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Net...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
8.0
Number of Reviews
90
Ranking in other categories
Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (7th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (3rd)
Trellix Endpoint Security (...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
22nd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
53
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 4.3%, down from 5.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is 1.6%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Mohammad Qaw - PeerSpot reviewer
Perfect correlation and XDR capabilities for network traffic plus endpoint security
The solution should force customers to integrate with network traffic to see the full benefits of XDR. If you are not integrating it or feeding in your network traffic, then you are just buying a normal antivirus which doesn't make any sense. You are paying double the price to use the antivirus feature or to say you have XDR, but in reality you are not using it. The solution should include an on-premises option because some customers want only on-premises. It would be hard, but good to do if possible. Open XDR would be beneficial in the future. Right now, the solution is Closed XDR so cannot communicate with the few new vendors in the Open XDR market.
Venugopal Potumudi - PeerSpot reviewer
Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup
I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. Having used Trend Micro as well, I would rate Trend Micro higher. However, I would still choose this product as a second option. When we recommend a product, we would recommend something based on the fit of the product and customer requirements. We worked with Defender, we worked with Trend Micro, and we worked with McAfee. All of them almost overlap in multiple use cases. That said, we do see the customer IT strategy and where they're going, and they are adopting Azure more. We know there are certain limitations in their landscape where there may be some old legacy systems, and in that case, then we would either switch back to McAfee or Trend Micro instead of Defender.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution helps find bugs, and it is safe to use to prevent attacks by hackers."
"The tool's use cases are relevant to security."
"It has pretty much everything we need and works well within the Palo Alto ecosystem."
"They have a new GUI which is just fantastic."
"It is an easy-to-use tool."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to rapidly detect certain hardware files."
"Has great threat detection capabilities."
"The user interface of the solution is sophisticated and straightforward."
"HIPS protects server files from being modified or deleted by unauthorized users. It's primarily deployed in the web tier."
"The most valuable network security feature is the network sandbox solution. This sandbox feature works on traffic flow."
"The platform's most valuable features are AI capabilities and its quick updates."
"If the network has seen something, we can use that to put a block to all the endpoints."
"It's a stable solution with good performance."
"The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities."
"The platform’s most valuable features are ease of use, integration, and deployment."
"I have not received any complaints about the performance."
 

Cons

"There are a large number of false positives."
"Every 30 or 40 days, there's a new version and we need to go and make sure our customer's laptops are upgraded."
"Being able to filter the events to see those that are related to the actual alert would save time spent by the engineer."
"The solution needs better reports. I think they should let the customer go in and customize the reports."
"Data privacy is a matter of concern. You have to be careful with data privacy, it can be sensitive and Cortex can have most of your access."
"The solution lags to the real-time scenarios here and there."
"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."
"The dashboard could use some significant improvement, just making it more useful with more information. It has a limited amount of information right now. It is customizable, but I'd love to see a better out-of-box dashboard."
"Upgrading to new versions isn't easy and it can take a long time. Also, other solutions' tamper protection features are better than FireEye's. Clients should have access to our local information, but they shouldn't change settings on the system itself."
"From an improvement perspective, I want everything in the solution to be free."
"Endpoint resource utilization causes high levels of instability and that is something that needs improvement."
"Intrusion detection and intervention seem to be falling behind the competition."
"It has very good integrations. However, its integration with Palo Alto was not good, and they seem to be working on it at the backend. It is not very resource-hungry, but it can be even better in terms of resource utilization. It could be improved in terms of efficiency, memory sizing, and disk consumption by agents."
"Sometimes, one might face issues with the scalability of the product. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement."
"If you have another endpoint product running on the same machine, you have to fine tune functions from FireEye to avoid performance and user experience issues."
"The way that signatures work when using this solution could be improved. They could be more user friendly. We would like the ability to select a client's signature from a menu or file share to save time."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay about $50,000 USD per year for a bundle that includes Cortex XDR."
"Our license will require renewal in August, after which the maintenance will continue as usual."
"It is present, but when compared to other competitive products, I would say it is not less expensive; however, when all of the other added values are considered, the price is reasonable."
"I don't like that they have different types of licenses."
"I am using the Community edition."
"I don't recall what the cost was, but it wasn't really that expensive."
"It is cost-effective compared to similar solutions. It fits for the small businesses through to the big businesses."
"The pricing is a little bit on the expensive side."
"The product pricing is high."
"There's a subscription on a yearly basis. It's not that expensive; it's quite affordable."
"MVISION is intended as an enterprise product and it is priced like one. This solution is within the price range of competitors at the enterprise level."
"We are on an annual subscription for McAfee MVISION Endpoint. The cost for the license could be less expensive."
"It was an annual fee. There was just one overall fee."
"The price of the product is similar to the ones in the market that offer the same features."
"Licensing fees are billed on a yearly basis."
"It is a yearly subscription-based product, which includes the license and hardware. There is also a subscription for technical support up to five years."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
15%
Government
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. Sentinel One
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks. The ability to reverse damage caused by ransomware with minimal interruptions to...
Comparing CrowdStrike Falcon to Cortex XDR (Palo Alto)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions that are very scalable, secure, and user-friendly. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto offers ...
How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface, applies behavioral-based endpoint protection and response, and includes risk-ba...
How does McAfee Endpoint Security compare with MVISION?
The flexible manageability of McAfee Endpoint Security is one of our favorite aspects of this solution. You can deploy various components as desired with McAfee Endpoint Security, whereas many othe...
How does Crowdstrike Falcon compare with FireEye Endpoint Security?
The Crowdstrike Falcon program has a simple to use user interface, making it both an easy to use as well as an effective program. Its graphical design is such that it makes an extremely useful too...
What do you like most about McAfee MVISION Endpoint?
The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
McAfee MVISION Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security (HX)
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Tech Resources Limited, Globe Telecom, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.