We performed a comparison between Trellix Endpoint Security and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Trellix Endpoint Security is highly valued for its easy administration options and reliability. Reviews suggest that Trellix could reduce resource consumption and improve user-friendliness. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks presents an intuitive interface, advanced identification of risks, expandability, and compatibility with various other solutions. However, Cortex XDR could use enhancements in hard disk encryption, security integration, and customer education.
Service and Support: Some users have found the support for Trellix Endpoint Security helpful and reliable, while others have encountered ineffective assistance and communication problems. Some customers were impressed with Palo Alto support, while others reported mixed experiences.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Trellix Endpoint Security varies in difficulty, depending on the user's experience with McAfee and general technical expertise. Some users thought Cortex XDR’s deployment was fast and straightforward, while others consider it to be a complex and time-consuming task that requires thorough planning.
Pricing: Some find Trellix’s price reasonable and competitive, while others believe it could be lowered. Some reviewers said Cortex XDR is expensive, but others said it was reasonable for the robust feature set Cortex offers.
ROI: Trellix Endpoint Security provides significant time savings. Cortex XDR creates value by ensuring system and data security rather than a financial return on investment.
Comparison Results: Trellix Endpoint Security is preferred over Cortex XDR. Users said Trellix's comprehensive management capabilities enable effortless administration of all programs from a single console. Cortex XDR received mixed reviews for its initial setup, customer service, and pricing.
"The advantage of Microsoft Defender XDR has over other XDRs in the market is that it's easy to use. You can quickly differentiate between alerts, incidents, devices, software, etc. It's easier to investigate an incident, and you have so many options. You can automate investigations and use playbooks. There's also the live response session, which is something you can't find in any other XDR."
"I like 365 Defender's advanced threat hunting. The dashboard is user-friendly with templates for site policies, etc. The most important use case is evaluating the risk links and applications."
"The integration with other Microsoft solutions is the most valuable feature."
"For me, the advanced hunting capabilities have been really great. It allowed querying the dataset with their own language, which is KQL or Kusto Query Language. That has allowed me to get much more insight into the events that have occurred. The whole power of 365 Defender is that you can get the whole story. It allows you to query an email-based activity and then correlate it with an endpoint-based activity."
"All of the security components are valuable including, antiphishing, antispam, and stage three antivirus."
"I like Defender XDR's automation capabilities. XDR isn't automated by default, but you can automate it to respond. If an attack is performed anywhere within the organization, you can isolate that instance from the network. This is what I can figure out for it. When integrated with Sentinel, you can set up playbooks to automate all the alerts gathered on Sentinel from different Microsoft solutions. Sentinel has a wider range of capabilities than XDR."
"The ability to hunt that IM data set or the identity data set at the same time is valuable. As incident response professionals, we are very used to EDRs and having device process registry telemetry, but a lot of times, we do not have that identity data right there with us, so we have to go search for it in some other silo. Being able to cross-correlate via both datasets at the same time is something that we can only do in Def"
"We can use Defender to block and monitor for security purposes without needing multiple other products to do different tasks."
"The protection offered by this product is good, as is the endpoint reporting."
"The initial setup is pretty easy."
"Traps is quite a stable product. Once it was properly deployed and configured, you have nothing to be worried about."
"Cortex XDR is a very capable solution for protecting large networks and a lot of endpoints. It's very useful because the automation is very high, and if you combine it with the features on Palo Alto firewalls, it provides very strong protection."
"Cortex XDR is a simple platform that's easy for administrators and users. You have a lot of flexibility to change or customize the features."
"When the pandemic started, Palo Alto came up with many solutions, which helped with the quick shift from on-premises to the cloud."
"The stability of this product is very good."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the prevention layer that detects the signature value and prevents threats in the network."
"It also allows multifunctionality within a single platform."
"The product is quite user-friendly."
"We like the management of the ePO, and we like the management console."
"McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection is stable. We don't have any bugs being reported."
"The manageability of the product itself is its most valuable aspect. You have the underlying EPO, and on top of it, you can deploy the various components as you require. This is unlike other solutions like Symantec where you have to deploy everything or nothing. With this solution, you can choose to only deploy antivirus or only deploy a firewall, or only something else. I choose the components and that deployment is done through EPO. It makes manageability very flexible."
"The product’s stability and security features enhance user protection and organizational security."
"The loss prevention feature would be the most valuable."
"Microsoft Defender XDR is not a full-fledged EDR or XDR."
"The solution could improve by having better machine learning and AI. Additionally, the interface, documentation, and integration could be better."
"Microsoft tends to provide too many features, which makes the solution prone to bugs."
"Defender also lacks automated detection and response. You need to resolve issues manually. You can manage multiple Microsoft security products from a single portal, and all your security recommendations are in one place. It's easy to understand and manage. However, I wouldn't say Defender is a single pane of glass. You still need to switch between all of the available Microsoft tools. You can see all the alerts in one panel, but you can't automate remediation."
"The tool gives inconsistent answers and crashes a lot."
"The only issue I've had is, when it comes to deployment, the steps I must take around policy setup. That is challenging."
"There is definitely scope for improvement in the automation area. Because the solution is a SaaS platform, we don't have the overall ability to automate stuff.... There is no direct way to go ahead because it's a SaaS platform."
"I personally have not seen much evidence of how Defender can enhance the story of zero trust for enterprises."
"I would like to see them include NDR (Network Detection Response)."
"It is not easy to sell Cortex XDR, not because it isn't a good tool. Its marketing needs to be improved."
"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."
"The solution could improve by providing better integration with their own products and others."
"Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats."
"There are some third-party solutions that are difficult to integrate with, which is something that can be improved."
"They've been having some issues with updating their endpoint agents, and it has been quite frustrating."
"There are some default policies which sometimes affect our applications and cause them to run around. In the hotel industry, we use a different type of data versus Oracle and SQL. By default, there are some policies which stop us from running properly. Because of this, the support level is also not that strong. We have to wait to get a results."
"Sometimes, while installing the ePO, we were getting so many errors and I don't know why it happened."
"Patch management is unavailable"
"I would like to have the ability to have more control over the deployment in the next release. If you have this console in the cloud, you cannot make pilot groups for deploying the agents. We only have the current group. So, as soon as you inject the software, it will go directly into production, which doesn't work for us. We need to build up pilot groups slowly. We already requested to have this feature on the cloud, and we are still waiting."
"Its pricing needs to be improved."
"While we are pleased with the endpoint solution, there should also be a separate one for the firewall."
"Recently, Trellix has introduced a CDR, which involves more manual response than automatic. I believe they should enhance the system by adding features like automated response and the ability to create custom playbooks. This is crucial for an EDR solution, and currently, Trellix lacks this feature while other products offer it."
"I would like to see more integration with third-party products."
"Although they have increased the complexity, it has affected the scanning speed."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks 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 is ranked 10th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 95 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. 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 writes "Good user behavioral analysis and helpful patching but needs better support services". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Symantec Endpoint Security and Trend Micro Apex One, whereas Trellix Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS), CrowdStrike Falcon, Trend Micro Deep Security and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Trellix Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.