We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"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 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."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"Forensics is a valuable feature of Fortinet FortiEDR."
"The solution allows control over the user and his machine through Cortex XDR security policies."
"The product has an intuitive dashboard."
"The tool's use cases are relevant to security."
"Its interface and pricing are most valuable. It is better than other vendors in terms of security."
"After deploying Traps, we saw the performance of the network improve by 65 to 70 percent."
"Traps has drastically reduced our endpoint attack surface via advanced detection capabilities, sandboxing of never before seen programs, and by drastically limiting where executables can launch in the first place."
"The most valuable for us is the correlation feature."
"The solution doesn't need a high level of technical training."
"WithSecure includes an encrypted drive that stores a key for accessing the encrypted data."
"It offers good scalability."
"The only issue that we have today is with false positives. We have too many false positives with the solution."
"I use the solution to protect our infrastructure. The tool has special frames for banking. There is an additional secure filter for banking-related pages. It protects me from viruses, malware, and attacks."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The product is stable."
More WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response Pros →
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"The support needs improvement."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"It is not very strong in terms of endpoint management. It should have additional features like DLP, encryption, or advanced device control. Currently, Cortex is good in terms of the security of the endpoints, but it is not as good as other vendors in terms of the management of the endpoint."
"The solution lacks real-time, on-demand antivirus."
"Traps doesn't work with McAfee. You need to remove McAfee to install Traps. This is very common, and its nothing that should be an issue. Some antivirus engines recognize Traps as an threat component, so maybe they need to shake hands somewhere."
"It is an enterprise-level solution. Its price could be less expensive."
"In reporting they should have a customizable dashboard due to the fact that C-level people don't like reporting to the IT department. They prefer to have a real-time dashboard. That kind of dashboard needs to have various customizations."
"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."
"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."
"Its automated functionality could be better."
"The monthly reporting feature of WithSecure can be improved."
"The tool’s mobile version needs to be improved."
"The website rules are too complicated."
"WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response is scalable. My company has 800-1000 customers."
"The initial setup is very straightforward."
More WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response Cons →
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response 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 Detection and Response is ranked 32nd in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 6 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response 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 Detection and Response writes "Has an additional secure filter for banking-related pages and protects from viruses, malware, and attacks". 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 WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Trend Vision One, Elastic Security and Cynet. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. WithSecure Elements Endpoint Detection and Response report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.