We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert 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."Impressive detection capabilities"
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"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."
"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."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The most valuable for us is the correlation feature."
"We can use Cortex XDR to get the entire graph of the incidents from source to destination, and we can take remedial action."
"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."
"Monitoring is most valuable."
"Since they've done their most recent update, the ease to isolate endpoints is valuable. If we find one where there is a virus on it, we can easily isolate it. We don't even have to contact the user. We don't have to manually take them off the network. We can easily isolate them."
"We can visualize and control the activities in the environment from anywhere."
"The integrations are out-of-the-box, as are the playbooks."
"After deploying Traps, we saw the performance of the network improve by 65 to 70 percent."
"It is a scalable solution...It is a stable solution."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Its customer service is quite good."
"Has some great features not available elsewhere."
"The product is very easy to use."
"The solution provides high-end security that is critical for financial institutions and bankers."
"This is a feature-rich product."
"The solution does a good job of filtering and blocking unusual traffic."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Pros →
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"It's more focused on network communication. If a customer wants to increase the level of protection and start working with documents, it's impossible to integrate these features into the system. It's more of a communication-oriented system than a content security-oriented system."
"When it comes to core analysis, and security analysis, Cortex needs to provide more information."
"Every 30 or 40 days, there's a new version and we need to go and make sure our customer's laptops are upgraded."
"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."
"Currently, we are monitoring all USB drives and ports but we would like to improve our device control capabilities."
"I would like to see better protection, specifically to protect email applications."
"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."
"There are a large number of false positives."
"If a customer wants to use Kaspersky on-prem, they'll need to spend a lot on the hardware. Their server must be strong because EDR is a heavy product. You need excellent hardware to run it. It might make sense to deploy the solution in the cloud. If they add features, it will only make the product heavier and increase the hardware costs."
"The solution does not offer much support to its users in Spanish, so I would like to see them offer more support in Spanish."
"I am not happy with Kaspersky's support since basic support is very cool unless you pay for some advanced support, in which you get better responses and feedback from Kaspersky's team."
"We'd like to see them improve the automatic response."
"There is a problem with the solution, it came from Russia and we are looking for a replacement."
"The technical support team should respond in a more timely manner."
"The system can be heavy, slowing down performance."
"They should include XDR features in the solution."
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Cons →
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 80 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is ranked 17th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 44 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is rated 8.2. 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 Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert writes "Solid security and performance; overall a useful tool". 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 Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert is most compared with Trend Vision One, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Cynet, IBM Security QRadar and Bitdefender GravityZone Ultra Plus. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert 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.