We performed a comparison between Cynet 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: Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. Cortex XDR presents an intuitive interface, advanced identification of risks, expandability, and compatibility with various other solutions. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools. Cortex XDR could use enhancements in hard disk encryption, security integration, and customer education.
Service and Support: Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. They have a dedicated support team that is available round the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents. Some customers were impressed with Palo Alto support, while others reported mixed experiences.
Ease of Deployment: Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly. 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: Customers generally view Cynet's pricing and licensing experience as affordable and a good value for its features. Some reviewers said Cortex XDR is expensive, but others said it was reasonable for the robust feature set Cortex offers.
ROI: Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data. Cortex XDR creates value by ensuring system and data security rather than a financial return on investment.
Comparison Results: Our users favor Cynet over Cortex XDR. Cynet offers an all-encompassing cybersecurity solution, equipped with cutting-edge ransomware detection, protection against threats, SOC monitoring, and an easily navigable interface. Users praise Cynet for its swift and customized setup process tailored to individual customer requirements. Cortex XDR receives varying opinions regarding its initial setup, pricing, and customer support, with some users finding it complex and costly.
"We can automate routine tasks and write scripts to carry out difficult tasks, which makes things easier for us."
"The comprehensiveness of Microsoft's threat detection is good."
"The most valuable feature depends on the scenario. For compliance, I like Microsoft Purview Information Protection and Data Loss Prevention. Sentinel is the most helpful feature for security. 365 Defender helps us prioritize threats across an enterprise. It's a crucial feature for the managed services team."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that Microsoft Defender XDR is easy to integrate with other Microsoft platforms or products."
"Microsoft 365 Defender is a stable solution."
"Microsoft 365 Defender is a good solution and easy to use."
"We are able to consolidate licences and make use of many Microsoft products using this solution. If we have any Microsoft customers, we encourage them to use this solution for enterprise defence."
"Microsoft 365 Defender is simple to upgrade."
"Cortex XDR's most valuable feature is its intelligence-based dashboards."
"The live terminal is probably the best thing ever. It gives you the access to get straight onto any machine."
"Traps is quite a stable product. Once it was properly deployed and configured, you have nothing to be worried about."
"WildFire AI is the best option for this product."
"The user interface of the solution is sophisticated and straightforward."
"Threat identification and detection are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Provides behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection."
"Best solution for avoiding security breaches, malware attacks, and other kinds of security issues."
"The product is very easy to use. Customers really appreciate that."
"Advanced detection and protection against ransomware paired with SOC monitoring are the most valuable features. They have 24/7 SOC monitoring and file activity. It is a very robust tool."
"The level of automation is very good because the majority of the time, it blocks the attacks without requiring anything from our side. The technicians don't have to do anything. They are just alerted about what happened. So, the user intelligence works quite well."
"Cynet's most valuable features are laptop and server performance, internal network monitoring, and external firewall lock management."
"We are very satisfied with the level of performance we get."
"I like the Cynet Correlator™ feature."
"This solution requires less management and is very easy to use."
"It's transparent, so it's not something where every user has to press a button to download or do the thing. It is centralized, in fact. Personally, I use Malwarebytes and other tools, which are fine for home use. Cynet is also relatively silent in terms of operation, except when it's required to act."
"The dashboard should be easier to use. There is also improvement needed in the reporting when it comes to exporting or scheduling reports."
"The interface could be improved. For example, if you want to do a phishing simulation for your employees, it can take a while to figure out what to do. The interface is a bit messy and could be updated. It isn't too bad, but doing some things can be a long process."
"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."
"Automated playbooks and automated dashboards would be preferable to the way the data is currently being presented."
"Since all of our databases are updated and located in the cloud, I would like additional support for this."
"It would be highly beneficial if CoPilot could identify anomalies within the network and notify the IT team."
"Microsoft Defender XDR is not a full-fledged EDR or XDR."
"The capability to not only thwart attacks but also to adapt to evolving threats is crucial."
"Currently, we are monitoring all USB drives and ports but we would like to improve our device control capabilities."
"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."
"Cortex XDR is trickier to configure than other Palo Alto products. This is one area where we are not so satisfied."
"There are a large number of false positives."
"Cortex XDR should have a lightweight agent, and the agent size should not be heavy."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Cynet fails to deploy the same technology in mobile devices."
"Cynet could improve when a reverse proxy is being used to connect to the servers. There could be an easier configuration because it is not plug-and-play."
"The solution just needs to keep maturing and they need to keep up with the threat landscape to ensure they're protecting clients well as time passes."
"In future releases, I would like to see cloud security aspects included."
"The command line interface could be improved."
"SIEM - Although with their Centralised Log Management Cynet has created the basis for SIEM functionality, this is to be expanded in the near future."
"Compliance reports need to improve."
"The inability to add contact information inside the Cynet is also an issue because it makes things more complicated. I would like to have a simple feature to enter a contact name and number for the person taking care of that unit or that server."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 80 reviews while Cynet is ranked 9th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 35 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Cynet is rated 8.8. 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 Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". 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 Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Stellar Cyber Open XDR. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Cynet report.
See our list of best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) vendors, best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors, and best Ransomware Protection vendors.
We monitor all Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.