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.
"Microsoft 365 Defender is simple to upgrade."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that Microsoft Defender XDR is easy to integrate with other Microsoft platforms or products."
"The most valuable features are spam filtering, attachment filtering, and antivirus protection."
"I like 365 Defender's advanced threat hunting. The dashboard is user-friendly with templates for site policies, etc. The most important use case is evaluating the risk links and applications."
"Microsoft Defender's most critical component is its CASB solution. It has many built-in policies that can improve your organization's cloud security posture. It's effective regardless of where your users are, which is critical because most users are working from home. It's cloud-based, so nothing is on-premise."
"Defender is easy to use. It has a nice console, and everything is all in one place."
"The Endpoint Manager is incredible; it has a very straightforward interface and is exceedingly easy to use. Pulling out and deploying different tags or resources is a simple task across various departments with different levels of security. The notifications are also simple and satisfying; it's great to see the bubble informing us which devices are compliant and which are waiting to update."
"Another noteworthy feature that I find appealing in Microsoft Defender is the credit-backed simulation. This feature enables organizations to train their users on effectively responding to phishing emails through a simulated training environment."
"The user interface of the solution is sophisticated and straightforward."
"Monitoring is most valuable."
"The one feature of Palo Alto Networks Traps that our organization finds most valuable is the App ID service."
"They did what they said. This solution could apply to any scenario."
"When the pandemic started, Palo Alto came up with many solutions, which helped with the quick shift from on-premises to the cloud."
"The integrations are out-of-the-box, as are the playbooks."
"The information the dashboard provides is very clear."
"The anti-exploit is impenetrable. We chose Traps because it is the only product that we were not able to get anything past."
"If some unusual activity happens on the network, such as I open administrator sessions in a short duration of an hour on many computers in the lab, it sends me an alert about my network saying that one user opened three, four, or five sessions in one hour. Similarly, if I try to play with the disk size on a computer, it will send me an alert, and it will also stop the operation."
"The product has valuable front-end features."
"The dashboard is beautiful, overall easy of use, and the UBA and NBA features are valued."
"The initial setup is simple and user-friendly."
"Cynet is light and transparent when downloaded. The product's data aggregation is also valuable since you can see everything you need on a page."
"I like the Cynet Correlator™ feature."
"A good feature is how the solution packages varied information into a single dashboard that's readable and meets our needs."
"Cynet is unique in that it has almost everything included and it was built up from the ground, instead of a bundle of purchased and composed modules. It gives you easier very good visibility than Sentinel One as well as a lower maintenance burden."
"It would be highly beneficial if CoPilot could identify anomalies within the network and notify the IT team."
"The abundance of sub-dashboards and sub-areas within the main dashboard can be confusing, even if it all technically makes sense."
"The data recovery and backup could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"I'd like to see a wider solution that includes not only desktop devices but also other devices, such as servers, storage cabinets, switching equipment, et cetera."
"The cost can be high if you want to build custom license packages. Another area for improvement is the policies. In Azure, we need to implement policies in JSON format, but in 365 Defender 365, it would be helpful to use a different format so we can customize the platform."
"The web filtering solution needs to be improved because currently, it is very simple."
"Data privacy is a matter of concern. You have to be careful with data privacy, it can be sensitive and Cortex can have most of your access."
"Managing the product should be easier."
"The price could be a little lower."
"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."
"It is not a suitable solution if you are looking for a single product with multiple features such as DLP, encryption, rollback, etc."
"It is a complex solution to implement."
"It's not an ideal choice for smaller businesses, as you need a minimum of 200 endpoints to even use the solution at all."
"The playbooks could be improved to include more functionalities or actions."
"The reporting is a little weak and could be improved. The other downside is that Cynet does not use the local time zone. It's based off of Greenwich Mean Time."
"There are some shortcomings in Cynet's integration capabilities that need improvement."
"They have some things in the pipeline, we understand, and they're going to be able to support Android and all these other devices soon. The key is the devices - which is an aspect that is lacking right now. Every company has that problem, not just Cynet."
"Management of the console could be simplified and made more user-friendly because right now it's not very easy to use."
"An administration feature will be useful for Cynet."
"Increased application for SOAR abilities across interconnected devices would be a welcome improvement."
"A support center in Asia is needed."
"Cynet could improve when a reverse proxy is being used to connect to the servers. There could be an easier configuration because it is not plug-and-play."
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 Cynet is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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 "It provides a whole new level of visibility and integrates with most other vendors". 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 Trend Micro Apex One, whereas Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Darktrace. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Cynet report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors, best Ransomware Protection vendors, and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.