We performed a comparison between BigFix and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks 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 setup is pretty simple."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"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."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"From a security standpoint, it allows us to make sure that we're not leaving ourselves vulnerable to exploits and things like that. That's the biggest advantage that we see to the product from a security standpoint."
"BigFix helped us to identify the compliance of devices and has also improved the way that we manage our software inventory for reporting to vendors."
"The technical support for BigFix is really amazing."
"BigFix has drastically reduced the maintenance window period to patch and reboot servers."
"The most valuable feature of BigFix is the reporting tool and patching Windows."
"BigFix is a great product. The flexibility of putting together your own relevance and retrieving custom data from any one of your agents is a valuable feature. It is one of my favorite features because if a boss asks me, "How many of these devices do we have?", I can put together a report in two seconds."
"Patch Management for a variety of operating systems makes it valuable as we can rely on a single tool for obtaining patch compliance of the entire compute infrastructure."
"It is for multiple use cases. A lot of people are looking at it just for security, and that's really endpoint security. The endpoint management part of it in terms of being able to constantly do patching for Windows, Unix, macOS, Cloud, Raspberry, VMware, and all Linux flavors is important, and they are very good at that. They have support for virtually every OS on the market."
"The behavior-based detection feature is valuable."
"The most valuable feature is that you can select remote access of any machine for sandboxing."
"The initial setup isn't too bad."
"It collects and caches and the knowledge of machine learning from different customers to take to the cloud. It makes it better to use for everybody. It allows for quick learning and updates and can, therefore, offer zero-day malware security. This sharing of metadata helps make the solution very safe."
"The stability of the solution is very good. We have about 100 users on it right now, and we use it twice a week."
"We can use Cortex XDR to get the entire graph of the incidents from source to destination, and we can take remedial action."
"Best solution for avoiding security breaches, malware attacks, and other kinds of security issues."
"The tool's use cases are relevant to security."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"The solution is not stable."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"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."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"I would like to see the Self Service section made more user-friendly."
"BigFix should improve its compatibility with other platforms, such as Linux."
"I would like to see different types of reporting and the ability to integrate closer with the cloud."
"The tool should be more friendly in terms of Web UI and should be having better vulnerability scanning mechanisms so a third-party application is not required to fulfill that aspect."
"We would like to see a different license plan, e.g. to include features from lifecycle with Patch Management, as an example."
"License management isn't quite as easy as it should be to deal with the licensing. You need to take the server down to import the new licenses which I find to be annoying."
"I'd like to see better API integration with BigFix. We have some tremendous API capability inside of CyFIR and the ability to take textual search results, for example, and bring that back into the BigFix dashboard. This would be of extreme interest to us and our customers."
"In order to derive maximum benefit from BigFix, it is essential that we configure all of its features and implement them effectively. If the automation could be improved we would be able to mitigate the risks associated with zero-day threats."
"There are a large number of false positives."
"It is a complex solution to implement."
"In terms of areas of improvement, we have not completed our review of the product. We're also looking at other products. So, it's a little bit hard to tell what could be different because we have not completed the review of this product, but based on our experience so far, its implementation is quite complex."
"In the next release, I would like to see more UI improvements. Their UI is a bit basic. When we are speaking about Palo Alto Networks they are the big company, so they can improve the UI a little bit. The UI, the reports, the log system can all be improved."
"It automatically detects security issues. It should be able to protect our network devices while operating autonomously."
"Cortex XDR should have a lightweight agent, and the agent size should not be heavy."
"There are some third-party solutions that are difficult to integrate with, which is something that can be improved."
"The solution needs better reports. I think they should let the customer go in and customize the reports."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
BigFix is ranked 14th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 91 reviews while Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 80 reviews. BigFix is rated 8.6, while Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of BigFix writes "Very stable and easy to deploy with excellent patch compliance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "Perfect correlation and XDR capabilities for network traffic plus endpoint security". BigFix is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Tanium, whereas Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Symantec Endpoint Security and Trellix Endpoint Security. See our BigFix vs. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.