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

Intercept X Endpoint vs Unit 42 Managed Detection and Response comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Intercept X Endpoint
Ranking in Managed Detection and Response (MDR)
8th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
104
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (9th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (8th), ZTNA (9th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (10th), Ransomware Protection (4th)
Unit 42 Managed Detection a...
Ranking in Managed Detection and Response (MDR)
47th
Average Rating
0.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Managed Security Services Providers (MSSP) (60th)
 

Featured Reviews

Khandokar Rabbi - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for endpoint security, ransomware protection, virus protection, and server security
Intercept X Endpoint is deployed on the cloud in our organization. Previously, we had two ransomware attacks when we were using Kaspersky as an endpoint security. We didn't face any ransomware attacks after using Intercept X Endpoint for endpoint security. Intercept X Endpoint has simplified our malware detection. Since we have already implemented the policies in the cloud, all the malware is automatically detected. The solution also detects and removes new malware that can also come from the cloud AI engine. Integrating Intercept X Endpoint with our current security infrastructure was very easy. In my opinion, Sophos is a better solution because we are using Sophos endpoint security and network security. These two things sync with each other and monitor the packets and network traffic. No other vendor has simultaneous devices to check everything. I would recommend the solution to other users. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
MohammedSirajuddin - PeerSpot reviewer
Flexible and reduces IT operations but requires local data sovereignty and competitive pricing
I prefer having local data sovereignty. It would be advantageous for Palo Alto to have local data centers across different countries to adhere to this requirement. I also have a concern regarding pricing, which is perceived as high compared to competitors. Improvements should focus on response times and reducing the time taken to reach solutions.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Anti-virus captures malicious threats and an aggressive next generation firewall."
"The package we use also comes with spam filtering features, which are quite useful."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The key factor that attracted me to Sophos Intercept X was the multi-platform. I have multiple clients that have mixed environments of Mac and Windows. I am able to deliver a standard solution, regardless of the platform."
"Technical support is responsive and adept."
"The most effective features of Intercept X Endpoint for threat prevention are ransomware protection, miscellaneous behavior detection, and network threat protection."
"The base product and the anti-malware feature are most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is that it literally works. We have reduced a lot of complaints after switching to Sophos."
"Unit 42 MDR provides us with managed detection and response functionalities, eliminating the need for capital expenditure since it is an operational expenditure-based service."
"Unit 42 MDR provides us with managed detection and response functionalities, eliminating the need for capital expenditure since it is an operational expenditure-based service."
 

Cons

"We've had difficulty with uninstalling the solution. When we try to uninstall an old version of the basic Sophos Antivirus, it doesn't seem to uninstall completely."
"The EDR could be improved, and perhaps the User Interface."
"Technical support can be improved. There could be shared support, i.e. where someone in Egypt can respond."
"Intercept X Endpoint sometimes slows down machines due to high CPU utilization and significant RAM consumption during scanning."
"We tried to set up Sophos Zero Trust within my Sophos central cloud. It only works with Microsoft and I use Google. I'd like to see Google added."
"Better protection in the endpoint, server, and mobile is needed."
"It would be better if it can automatically generate a report for each and every user so that the users get to know the things that shouldn't be accessed from their PCs. It can have information about malicious and non-malicious sites so users are aware of them, and they don't access malicious websites. Such reports can be generated at the end of the day. We should also be able to get through to their support team quickly. Currently, it takes more than half an hour to get through to a technical person."
"They don't have the full stack of offerings as compared to the other competitive products that we see."
"I also have a concern regarding pricing, which is perceived as high compared to competitors."
"I have a concern regarding pricing, which is perceived as high compared to competitors."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"While I do not have much experience dealing with the price, we have been entitled to a substantial discount on the solution in our use of it as an educational tool."
"The cost of Sophos Intercept X is reasonable."
"They offer both monthly and yearly licenses."
"One can pay for the license annually, or at two and five year intervals."
"It is a high-cost solution."
"Its price depends on the scenario. It is very expensive, but it is not more expensive than other vendors. The price of Check Point and other vendors is much higher than Sophos."
"It is not very expensive but I don't have specific pricing details. The licensing is usually done on yearly basis."
"Intercept X for endpoints is around $35 per user per year. The server version is $95 per server per year."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed Detection and Response (MDR) solutions are best for your needs.
849,600 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Comms Service Provider
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Crodwstrike Falcon compare with Sophos Intercept X?
I like that Crowdstrike Falcon allows me to easily correlate data between my firewalls. Its detection and machine learning are very valuable features. Crowdstrike Falcon also successfully prevents ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Sophos Intercept X?
I would describe it as economical, but not much cheaper than other solutions.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Unit 42 Managed Detection and Response?
I find the pricing to be expensive, especially when compared with competitors who offer significant discounts. Palo Alto has room to become more competitive in its pricing.
What needs improvement with Unit 42 Managed Detection and Response?
I prefer having local data sovereignty. It would be advantageous for Palo Alto to have local data centers across different countries to adhere to this requirement. I also have a concern regarding p...
What is your primary use case for Unit 42 Managed Detection and Response?
Unit 42 is a Managed Detection and Response solution with MDR capabilities. I use it in a managed service context where my organization's security needs are catered to by Palo Alto. Generally, it i...
 

Also Known As

Sophos Intercept X
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Flexible Systems
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, Huntress, Field Effect and others in Managed Detection and Response (MDR). Updated: April 2025.
849,600 professionals have used our research since 2012.