We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Malwarebytes 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."The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"It is stable and scalable."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"We've had a significant increase in blocking with a decrease in false positives, because it's looking at how the files work, not just a list of files that it's been told to look for."
"The most valuable features are the fact that it was running in the background and it would intercept any weird stuff, and the fact that it would send things directly to the cloud for sandboxing. It's quite practical."
"We can use Cortex XDR to get the entire graph of the incidents from source to destination, and we can take remedial action."
"I've found the solution to be highly scalable for enterprises."
"Provides behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection."
"The most valuable feature of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is the low consumption of system resources. The solution uses a lot of AI and machine learning."
"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."
"They did what they said. This solution could apply to any scenario."
"Provides successful ransomware shut down operations."
"It's very versatile and thorough."
"We don't have to spend any time remediating bad things happening: Not viruses nor ransomware."
"Being able to carry out a full scan on your system."
"The endpoint protection and response that allows us to restore a machine back to a pre-infected state are the most valuable features."
"The installation process is very easy, especially since it is on the cloud."
"The pricing of the product is very good."
"The platform is straightforward to install."
"The support needs improvement."
"Intelligence aspects need improvement"
"Detections could be improved."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"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."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"The price could be a little lower."
"There are a large number of false positives."
"Although I would say this product is highly-rated, it could probably do more because nothing does everything that you want."
"It tends to do 99.9% of things. The only thing I'd like is single sign-on authentication into their cloud platform so that my users can be properly authenticated against it."
"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'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."
"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."
"The dashboard could use some significant improvement, just making it more useful with more information. It has a limited amount of information right now. It is customizable, but I'd love to see a better out-of-box dashboard."
"There is room for improvement in the way it is deployed, in terms of being able to distribute it. Right now we have to get our hands on a machine to deploy it. It would be nice if there was an easier system."
"I would like to see a little more detail in the log. So, when an event occurs, I'd like to know not just when it happened and on what device, but what activity was taking place on the machine at the time so that we can drill down. If we get a false positive, we have to do a lot of research and go back and forth with our end-users to know why it was a false positive. So, having a little more detail around detections and events would probably be my most asked feature."
"If they want to compete with bigger players, they should consider adding items like threat detection and website warnings."
"They could come up with better reporting capabilities."
"The product could be improved in blocking malicious traffic, such as communication with known malicious IP addresses."
"We had a little performance problem with the solution, but that's been resolved. Since then, it's been running well."
"The product update capability needs to be improved."
"It's not good in search hunting."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 80 reviews while Malwarebytes is ranked 18th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 35 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Malwarebytes 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 Malwarebytes writes "Intuitive, easy to use, and does a good job of catching and stopping things for the most part and has a unique rollback feature". 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 Malwarebytes is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, HP Wolf Security, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Cisco Secure Endpoint. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Malwarebytes 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.