We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Monitoring is most valuable."
"The one feature of Palo Alto Networks Traps that our organization finds most valuable is the App ID service."
"Threat identification and detection are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The anti-exploit is impenetrable. We chose Traps because it is the only product that we were not able to get anything past."
"From a single pane of glass, you can easily manage all of your endpoints."
"This software helps us understand any issues that may arise when someone is not at work."
"The integrations are out-of-the-box, as are the playbooks."
"Provides behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection."
"Trellix has a user-friendly interface."
"The product provides a one-click recovery of encrypted files."
"Blocking browser navigation is a feature of the solution with which we have experienced success."
"The product is user-friendly."
"It is a scalable solution and very easy to use."
"What we're using the most and what we found valuable in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response are Web Control, Advanced Threat Protection, and Threat Prevention features."
"The product's initial setup phase was very straightforward since you just need to install it, and it works."
"If there is any malicious behavior in the workstation or server, the tool stops or isolates it automatically and generates alerts."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"The solution is not stable."
"I would like to see them include NDR (Network Detection Response)."
"The solution can never really be an on-premises solution based simply on the way it is set up. It needs metadata to run and improve. Having an on-premises solution would cut it off from making improvements."
"It should support more mobile operating systems. That is one of the cons of their infrastructure right now."
"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."
"If they had pulse rate detection, it would be better."
"Cortex does not offer an on-premises solution. However, some customers would prefer not to be on the cloud. It would be ideal if it could offer something on-prem as well."
"Previously, the endpoint would leave the environment, not being on our VPN, essentially unable to interact with the server to upload files. It was unable to retrieve new file verdicts. It was using a thing called "local analysis" to determine if something was a malicious file or not. There was no dynamic analysis."
"Every 30 or 40 days, there's a new version and we need to go and make sure our customer's laptops are upgraded."
"The alert feature of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response needs improvement because for you to get the alerts, you have to log on to the portal. What my company needs is a tool that sends you alerts. For example, if it detects a threat on your machine, it should send you an alert. My company gets the alerts instead from the antivirus software rather than the EDR. If you want to see the alerts on McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, you have to connect to the system manually. Another area for improvement in the tool is the reporting. My company needs weekly and monthly reports about the alerts, but you can't extract reports from McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, so a decision was made to move to another EDR solution, particularly Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, next month. My company tested Microsoft Defender for Endpoint via a POC for one to three months. The resource usage of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is also an area for improvement because it consumes a lot of memory. For example, during the on-demand scan, you can't work because of the high CPU usage. You need to schedule the scans. McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response has a lot of modules, but my company doesn't use all modules."
"The solution's downside stems from the fact that Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and McAfee MVISION Endpoint are not combined into a single solution, so from an improvement perspective, they need to be combined into a single solution."
"Some modules that are doing machine learning and artificial intelligence are blocking our processes."
"The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors."
"The graphical view for nodes must be increased."
"An area for improvement in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the historical search. For example: when you have information on the artifact and a precedent, you want to do a search, and that is a bit lacking in the tool."
"For Spanish users, it is necessary to have a knowledge base specifically designed for them, which is currently not available."
"The solution lacks the ability to integrate with external platforms. In future releases of the solution, I would like to see the solution increase its integration capabilities with external platforms."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 80 reviews while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is ranked 23rd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 17 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is rated 7.4. 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 Detection and Response (EDR) writes "Multifeatured, with web control, advanced threat protection, and threat prevention capabilities, but its alerting and reporting features need improvement". 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 Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), Trellix Active Response, Cynet, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.