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.
"I like how Microsoft XDR and the other Microsoft products are integrated into a single unified security stack covering identity access management, endpoint protection, email, cloud applications, etc."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft 365 Defender are the combination of all the capabilities and centralized management."
"In Microsoft 365 vendor products, monitoring and connectivity across all Microsoft and third-party connectors enable viewing of all activity within those environments."
"Microsoft Defender XDR is scalable."
"The common and advanced security policies for threat hunting and blocking attacks are valuable."
"All of the security components are valuable including, antiphishing, antispam, and stage three antivirus."
"The summarization of emails is a valuable feature."
"Many people don't realize that Microsoft Azure, Exchange Online, and the security and compliance portal all sync together. For instance, within the Azure portal you can set security restrictions and policies to help secure your tenants... The good part of it is that these products have already been integrated. When you sign on as an admin you have global admin rights and that gives you access to all these features."
"The most valuable feature of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is its machine-learning capabilities. Additionally, there is full integration with other solutions."
"It'll not slow down your system when compared to others."
"The tool's use cases are relevant to security."
"When the pandemic started, Palo Alto came up with many solutions, which helped with the quick shift from on-premises to the cloud."
"I like the centralized console and the predictive analysis it does of malware. It is very stable and also scalable."
"The ability to kind of stitch everything together and see the actual complete picture is very useful. I guess you'd call it a playbook. Some people call it the forensics analysis of what was happening on particular endpoints when they detected some malicious behavior, and what transpired before that to cause that. It is also very user friendly. The way they have done everything and integrated all the solutions that they've purchased over the years to make it a very seamless, effective product is very good. One thing about Palo Alto is that they take the products or services that they purchase and make them seamless for the end user as compared to some companies that purchase other companies and then just kind of have their products off to the side or keep different interfaces. Palo Alto doesn't do that."
"Cortex XDR is a simple platform that's easy for administrators and users. You have a lot of flexibility to change or customize the features."
"I've found the solution to be highly scalable for enterprises."
"I like that you can implement it in the managed service portfolio."
"Its ability to revert back from a previous state is quite notable. This feature is particularly valuable because, for maintaining integrity, it can inspect the socket for any firewall modifications. In practice, it allows us to return to a previous configuration when everything was functioning correctly."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the monitored support behind it."
"I like the Cynet Correlator™ feature."
"We are using almost all of the features and we find it quite good overall."
"The initial setup is very fast and very easy."
"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."
"There should be better information for experts on features in the solution. What I see when reading about features in Microsoft 365 Defender is that it is always general information. If Microsoft could go deeper into details for the experts about how to use the tools, usage of it would be more familiar and it would be easier to use."
"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."
"The Defender agent itself is more compatible with Windows 10 and Windows 11. Other than these two lines, there are so many compatibility issues. Security is not only about Microsoft. The core technical aspects of it are quite good, but it would be good if they can better support non-Microsoft solutions in terms of putting the agents directly into VMware and other virtualization solutions. There should be more emphasis on RHEL and other operating systems that we use, other than Windows, in the server category."
"The only issue I've had is, when it comes to deployment, the steps I must take around policy setup. That is challenging."
"We should be able to use the product on devices like Apple, Linux, etc."
"The only problem I find is that the use cases are built-in. There is no template available that you can modify according to your organization's standards. What they give is very generic, the market standard, but that might not be applicable to every organization."
"Improving scalability, especially for very large tenants, could be beneficial for Microsoft Defender XDR."
"Generally, antivirus products provide a central control to manage every device in terms of who is installing it or who is trying to disable it, but Microsoft doesn't have such a control center for the antivirus product it provides."
"When it comes to core analysis, and security analysis, Cortex needs to provide more information."
"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 playbooks could be improved to include more functionalities or actions."
"The connection to the internet has not performed as expected."
"The server sometimes stops continuously to check things so it would be helpful to receive access updates or technical reasons."
"We have found that there are times Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks does not detect some of the viruses, we have to use another protection solution called Kaspersky."
"The product's pricing needs improvement. They could provide more discounts. Additionally, the dashboard and control panel could be enhanced."
"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."
"There are some shortcomings in Cynet's integration capabilities that need improvement."
"One thing to note is that I highly recommend adding a deep learning-based prevention environment as an additional layer to Cynet. However, I always advise my customers to start with Cynet or XDR, for example, and then focus on the people, technology, and processes involved. This is the best approach to ensure that you are not breached with ransomware. While Cynet can prevent most attacks, there have been cases where ransomware has been quicker than Cynet's detection capabilities. In these situations, an additional tool is necessary to ensure complete protection, and that is what I sell as well."
"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."
"It is an endpoint agent, but they don't have a probe for checking the network traffic. They could improve from this point of view."
"Management of the console could be simplified and made more user-friendly because right now it's not very easy to use."
"Compliance reports need to improve."
"Its dashboard is not so good. On the dashboard, they don't show the count for client endpoints, which is a failure of this product. This count should be shown on the dashboard. I have 1,000 clients, but I can't see it anywhere on the dashboard."
"SIEM - Although with their Centralised Log Management Cynet has created the basis for SIEM functionality, this is to be expanded in the near future."
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.