We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cortex XDR presents an intuitive interface, advanced identification of risks, expandability, and compatibility with various other solutions. Users praised Symantec Endpoint Security for its regular virus signature updates and comprehensive administrator's console. Cortex XDR could use enhancements in hard disk encryption, security integration, and customer education. Reviewers said Symantec Endpoint Security could improve its graphical interface, Linux support, and scanning capabilities.
Service and Support: Some customers were impressed with Palo Alto’s support, while others reported mixed experiences. Some users said Symantec customer service was helpful but slow, while others have expressed general dissatisfaction with support.
Ease of Deployment: 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. Some users said Symantec Endpoint Security was easy to set up, while others struggled with the installation. Deployment time varies depending on the customer’s environment.
Pricing: Some reviewers said Cortex XDR is expensive, but others said it was reasonable for the robust feature set Cortex offers. The cost of Symantec Endpoint Security depends on the licensing terms and necessary security components. While some users find the price acceptable, others believe it could be more affordable.
ROI: Cortex XDR creates value by ensuring system and data security rather than a financial return on investment. Symantec Endpoint Security demonstrates strong stability and incident prevention, leading to reduced downtime. It offers a favorable return on investment.
"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."
"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 product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"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."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The management capabilities, allow an IT organization to get quite a good picture of attempted cyber attacks."
"The initial setup is pretty easy."
"Traps is quite a stable product. Once it was properly deployed and configured, you have nothing to be worried about."
"Provides behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection."
"Stability is a primary factor, and then there's the ease of distribution and policy management."
"When the pandemic started, Palo Alto came up with many solutions, which helped with the quick shift from on-premises to the cloud."
"If there are multiple alerts, the app will automatically create and rate an event instead of going through each one."
"The behavior-based detection feature is valuable."
"The single-pane management is the solution's most valuable feature. It makes administrative control very easy."
"With a single console, you get control over Mac, Windows, iOS, and Android. This control is most valuable."
"The solution, especially in older versions, is quite stable."
"Symantec have everything – documentation, videos, data sheets."
"When they started they found it very easy; not easy to implement but easy to use. We started with the headquarters here and later we also implemented it for all the subsidiaries in the region, in other countries. They have a centralized solution, so they can help other countries in management."
"SEP, the entire suite of components, provides good endpoint protection."
"The solutions' main features are patch management and security."
"It is a stable product."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"Once, we had an event that was locked and blocked, but information about it came to us two or three days later."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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 should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"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."
"Managing the product should be easier."
"The solution should force customers to integrate with network traffic to see the full benefits of XDR."
"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."
"The product's pricing needs improvement. They could provide more discounts. Additionally, the dashboard and control panel could be enhanced."
"There are some third-party solutions that are difficult to integrate with, which is something that can be improved."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve by offering remote management. It would be useful to look at the client's issue to fix it."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR does not detect malicious activity like in other anti-virus solutions like Trend Micro and Windows with Cisco."
"Is not a full anti-ransomware solution."
"I think the CPU dependence should be enhanced."
"If a machine is infected by ransomware, it's hard to recover the data. We don't have any data on the client, so we're not overly concerned about that. Still, it would be nice to have this feature if there are any future problems."
"Since the division of the company, we have experienced a lack of support."
"We had an issue with the Broadcom migration. We had some problems with product support, and the deployment is tricky because it's an on-premises technology. Deploying any on-premises security solution is hard because you have to distribute the software."
"There is no local support for Symantec products in Hong Kong."
"In a few cases, when we enable the IPS/IDS feature, there are performance-related issues on the end devices. If we run quite a few features of Symantec, especially the IPS/IDF, it consumes a lot of processing and memory capacity."
"I would like to see fileless attack protection."
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 Symantec Endpoint Security is ranked 5th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 140 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Symantec Endpoint Security is rated 7.6. 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 Symantec Endpoint Security writes "The solution has given us visibility into compliance within our whole system and helped us ensure everything is updated". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Trellix Endpoint Security and Check Point Harmony Endpoint, whereas Symantec Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trend Micro Deep Security and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Symantec Endpoint Security 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.