We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, users favor Cortex XDR, mainly because its pricing is more reasonable than that of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business.
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"Cortex covers everything I need. It's a perfect solution. Cortex provides a different level of visibility because it's an extended EDR, allowing you to grab logs from the network and firewalls. Palo Alto invented the concept of the extended EDR or XDR."
"The stability of the solution is very good. We have about 100 users on it right now, and we use it twice a week."
"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."
"Threat identification and detection are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Monitoring is most valuable."
"The most valuable for us is the correlation feature."
"Stability is one of the features we like the most."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is a cost-effective solution."
"We have had no troubles installing, maintaining, or deploying the product for our clients."
"The implementation and integration are easy."
"They have a very good reporting system and they have a very good dashboard for the administrator, which makes monitoring everything easy."
"Our clients are using the advanced options, and they're quite comfortable with this solution because they didn't have any problems. It was easy to integrate it with Active Directory. It is fast and easy to use. It has all the required features."
"The failure rate is very low."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that the application control is very good."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"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."
"The support needs improvement."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"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."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"There are some default policies which sometimes affect our applications and cause them to run around. In the hotel industry, we use a different type of data versus Oracle and SQL. By default, there are some policies which stop us from running properly. Because of this, the support level is also not that strong. We have to wait to get a results."
"It would be good to have a better way to search for a file within the UI."
"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."
"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."
"It should support more mobile operating systems. That is one of the cons of their infrastructure right now."
"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."
"The solution can never really be an on-premises solution based simply on the way it is set up. It needs metadata to run and improve. Having an on-premises solution would cut it off from making improvements."
"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."
"The solution's management console can be better and more granular than it is now."
"I would like to see integration to many different systems easier."
"Kaspersky and most other security products have a lot of modules. They recently added several new ones. You find yourself buying and deploying so many things. There are some modules that everyone uses, like, for example, the orchestration module. Instead of selling them separately, it would be better to have bundles or an all-in-one license."
"There have been some performance issues. They provide good security, but this slows down the performance of machines' servers. The software is not updating as frequently as we need."
"This solution used a lot of memory and GPU; it would be nice if this could be reduced."
"As far as improvements, maybe the licensing could be cheaper, but I think this solution is pretty okay."
"The support must provide quick responses."
"I would like to have more forensic features. For example, if we are hit by an attack, I would like to have tools to investigate what kind of attack, who has attacked, how it was attacked, and what we could do to stop this kind of attack in the future. I would like to have more forensics capability built into Kaspersky."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 80 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 111 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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 Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Symantec Endpoint Security and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Fortinet FortiClient, CrowdStrike Falcon, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Trend Vision One Endpoint Security. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.