We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection 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."NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The multi-layered approach to the product gives you confidence that it will stop exploits, ransomware, worms, or viruses from compromising endpoints, essentially providing peace of mind."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks should be a stable solution."
"The user interface of the solution is sophisticated and straightforward."
"It has pretty much everything we need and works well within the Palo Alto ecosystem."
"It's a nice product that's stable and scalable."
"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."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is easy to use and does not consume a lot of hardware resources."
"The initial setup isn't too bad."
"The notifications and patch management features are valuable."
"We use the product for detecting network vulnerabilities and for software update purposes."
"Both incoming and outgoing traffic is protected."
"The most valuable features of WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection are the clear useful portal and overall company protection."
"On the cloud management page, the solution scales up very highly."
"There is a layer of security to prevent a malicious agent (malware) from interrupting or stopping services, deleting or modifying registry entries or even stopping the antivirus from acting, ensuring that there will be no interruption of protection."
"F-Secure is useful for keeping user machines up-to-date by pushing out security and critical updates."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"The solution is not stable."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"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."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"They have the worst support, as a company, that I have ever worked with, as they are difficult to get a hold of and keep on the phone. They don't know what they are talking about when you get them on the phone. They don't like to respond to messages when you send them to them. They like to "research problems" for weeks on end, then pass you off to somebody else."
"There is a severe gap in functionality between Windows, Linux, and Mac versions. For example all folder restriction settings are Windows only. Traps 5.0+ does not have SAML / LDAP integration."
"It would be better if they could educate the customers more. Some sort of seminars and roadshows will help educate the customers and show what the product can do. The price could be better. It would also help if they had a team for deployment and support."
"It's very time-consuming to log support issues and the people that answer the tickets aren't very knowledgeable."
"It would be good if they could make an exception for applications. Sometimes, it can be a bit of a challenge to make exceptions for certain applications that have been used as rogue."
"We had a problem with getting our older endpoints up to date, but their newest updates have been really good. I've been pleased with it in terms of what our needs are. It's doing what we want it to do."
"In general, the price could be more competitive."
"Cortex XDR should have a lightweight agent, and the agent size should not be heavy."
"The program and cloud service management is in English. It's not a problem for me, however, it might be for users who don't speak English or use it regularly."
"Resource consumption is suboptimal and could be improved."
"The solution could improve by having more real-time responses. For example, when a license gets removed from a computer it does not update the records of the change. Additionally, when I installed Microsoft Windows Defender I was not able to send licenses through email to our tenants. The integration with other solutions could improve."
"I would like the part of Hash Analysis by external sources to be improved."
"There could be a dedicated security partner with essential knowledge."
"There is no technical support available in the Middle East."
"But the biggest one for us is patch management because this has been our top priority when looking at alternatives. Every solution needs to have patch management, if that's possible. It would cut costs on our side if that feature were included, so we don't need to pay for two separate pieces of software."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 80 reviews while WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection is ranked 37th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 7 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection 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 WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection writes "Good for pushing out security updates but it needs to add patch management". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Symantec Endpoint Security and Check Point Harmony Endpoint, whereas WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, Fortinet FortiClient, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Symantec Endpoint Security. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. WithSecure Elements Endpoint Protection 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.