We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"They did what they said. This solution could apply to any scenario."
"It can automatically correlate events and logs, which is very helpful for an IT administrator. It can correlate different kinds of malware activities over a network, agent, or host system. You do not need to do it manually. It is a good feature. It is also a user-friendly solution. We have deployed it on the cloud because our space does not provide any flexibility for on-premises deployment, but Palo Alto has added some flexibility to install it on-premises. It must be like the same Cortex XDR agent for all the VPN services, web filtering services, and everything else."
"The stability of this product is very good."
"Threat identification and detection are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The behavior-based detection feature is valuable."
"The product has an intuitive dashboard."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is easy to use and does not consume a lot of hardware resources."
"It is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision."
"Trellix Endpoint Security has a full suite of DLP."
"Provides protection against threats."
"Provides good mobile device protection."
"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."
"It is scalable and stable and the initial setup is the easiest part of using the product."
"MVISION offers decent protection."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"The support needs improvement."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, is not user-friendly."
"The dashboard is the area that needs to improve so that we can have the ability to drill down without having to go elsewhere to verify results."
"A little bit more automation would be nice."
"In general, the price could be more competitive."
"Limited remote connection."
"Cortex XDR should have a lightweight agent, and the agent size should not be heavy."
"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."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve by offering remote management. It would be useful to look at the client's issue to fix it."
"They could also increase or improve the scalability because to my knowledge the biggest bandwidth can only support up to 10 gigs of input."
"One suggestion is they should reduce the constant notifications. Whenever I open my laptop, there are too many notifications from McAfee, and it gets annoying."
"You do not have access to all the features when you use the Trellix web interface. For example, you cannot do device or drive encryption from the web interface. Also, when we're working with customers, it's sometimes challenging to get sales support. Delays mean we might lose an opportunity. Lastly, Trellix lacks some documentation about custom features."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see more automation."
"Most of these types of solutions including others, such as Carbon Black and FortiEDR, all have the same features. However, Carbon Black is the leader when it comes to being robust and user-friendly and this solution should improve in those areas to stay more competitive."
"They have something called Managed Detection and Response. They get intel from their customers, and that intel is shared with the rest of FireEye's customers. I want to subscribe to their intel, but that is not available to us."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) 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 (ENS) is ranked 19th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 49 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) is rated 7.6. 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 (ENS) writes "Reliable with good independent modules and a straightforward setup". 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 Security (ENS) is most compared with Trellix Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Tanium. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.