Korede OlatunjiApplication Manager at Huntington Bancshares Incorporated
Anonymous UserCybersecurity Incident Response Analyst at a computer software company
Anonymous UserSenior Cyberecurity Manager at a financial services firm
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"For the initial first level of support, we provide it from our side. If there's escalation required, we use Cisco tech for the AMP. And again, they are perfect. I mean, one of the best, compared to any other vendors."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the IPS and the integration with ISE."
"The simplicity of use is its most valuable feature. You can very clearly see things."
"The stability of the solution is perfect. I believe it's the most stable solution on the market right now."
"I am really satisfied with the technical support."
"It is a very stable program."
"The solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features."
"It doesn't impact the devices. It is an agent-based solution, and we see no performance knock on cell phones. That was a big thing for us, especially in the mobile world. We don't see battery degradation like you do with other solutions which really drain the battery, as they're constantly doing things. That can shorten the useful life of a device."
"We have a complete overview of all our PCs and it's very easy to handle and to use the interface. It has a lot of benefits for us."
"It's very stable. I've never experienced downtime for the ASM console or ASM core."
"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 one feature of Palo Alto Networks Traps that our organization finds most valuable is the App ID service."
"WildFire AI is the best option for this product."
"The most valuable for us is the correlation feature."
"They have a new GUI which is just fantastic."
"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."
"The feature I find most valuable, is the reality graphical user interface."
"This solution requires less management and is very easy to use."
"We are using almost all of the features and we find it quite good overall."
"It can be deployed in autonomous mode, and then it automatically blocks malware threats."
"The product is very easy to use. Customers really appreciate that."
"The most valuable feature is the monitored support behind it."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that the configuration and the usage of the product are not so complicated. For people responsible for using this infrastructure for the first line of workstation monitoring, it's quite easy to use."
"The dashboard is beautiful, overall easy of use, and the UBA and NBA features are valued."
"The solution needs more in-depth analytics."
"In the next version of this solution, I would like to see the addition of local authentication."
"The initial setup is a bit complex because you need to execute existing antiviruses or security software that you have on your device."
"In the next release, I would for it to have back up abilities. I would like the ability to go back to a point in time to when my PC was uninfected and to the moment of when the infection happened."
"The reporting and analytics areas of the solution need to be improved."
"I would like more seamless integration."
"The technical support is very slow."
"I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products."
"Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats."
"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 needs better reports. I think they should let the customer go in and customize the reports."
"It automatically detects security issues. It should be able to protect our network devices while operating autonomously."
"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."
"There are some third-party solutions that are difficult to integrate with, which is something that can be improved."
"There's an overall lack of features."
"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."
"I think the technical support could be better."
"A support center in Asia is needed."
"I would like to see support for mobile protection and some additional reports included."
"Could have better integration with other security applications."
"The solution just needs to keep maturing and they need to keep up with the threat landscape to ensure they're protecting clients well as time passes."
"Most of their times are in Greenwich Mean Time. I would like to see more local time zones."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the usability of this product for new threats. Meaning, not everything which is new is properly seen by the product and not all the required actions are taken."
"Compliance reports need to improve."
"The costs of 50 licenses of AMP for three years is around $9,360."
"The price is very good."
"The visibility that we have into the endpoint and the forensics that we're able to collect give us value for the price. This is not an overly expensive solution, considering all the things that are provided. You get great performance and value for the cost."
"Whenever you are doing the licensing process, I would highly advise to look at what other Cisco solutions you have in your organization, then evaluate if an Enterprise Agreement is the best way to go. In our case, it was the best way to go. Since we had so many other Cisco products, we were able to tie those in. We were actually able to get several Cisco security solutions for less than if we had bought three or four Cisco security solutions independently or ad hoc."
"In our case, it is a straightforward annual payment through our Enterprise Agreement."
"Our company was very happy with the price of Cisco AMP. It was about a third of what we were paying for System Center Endpoint Protection."
"There are a couple of different consumption models: Pay up front, or if you have an enterprise agreement, you can do a monthly thing. Check your licensing possibilities and see what's best for your organization."
"The Enterprise Agreement is like an all-you-can-eat buffet of Cisco products. In that vein, it was very affordable."
"This is an expensive solution."
"The pricing is a little high. It is per user per year."
"We pay about $50,000 USD per year for a bundle that includes Cortex XDR."
"This is an expensive solution."
"Its pricing is kind of in line with its competitors and everybody else out there."
"Every customer has to pay for a license because it doesn't work with what you get from a managed services provider."
"The pricing is okay, although direct support can be expensive."
"Our customers have expressed that the price is high."
"It gives you a high level of protection at a very good price."
"Everything is included in this one solution and the pricing is pretty competitive."
"Our billing is on a quarterly basis, but they have monthly or annual billing availability."
"The price should not be less than $100 which is quite reasonable for this solution because you are getting multiple components."
"Its licensing is on a monthly basis."
"Pricing wise, Cynet seems to be very competitive. The cost is probably lower than that offered by many of its competitors for all the functions and features it offers."
Advanced Malware Protection (AMP) is subscription-based, managed through a web-based management console, and deployed on a variety of platforms that protects endpoints, network, email and web Traffic. AMP key features include the following: Global threat intelligence to proactively defend against known and emerging threats, Advanced sandboxing that performs automated static and dynamic analysis of files against more than 700 behavioral indicators, Point-in-time malware detection and blocking in real time and Continuous analysis and retrospective security regardless of the file's disposition and Continuous analysis and retrospective security.
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is the world's first detection and response app that natively integrates network, endpoint and cloud data to stop sophisticated attacks. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks accurately detects threats with behavioral analytics and reveals the root cause to speed up investigations.
Cynet has pioneered the security industry’s first all-in-one security platform purposely built for organizations that need the ability to effortlessly identify, block and respond to all types of attacks inside the perimeter - defending endpoints, network, files and users - without the heavy burden of deep cyber expertise and the overhead of integrating and managing multiple products. Our approach converges and brings synergy with technology: endpoint protection, EDR, vulnerability management, deception, threat intelligence and network and end-user analytics, and expertise: a 24/7 cyber SWAT team for incident response, malware analysis, threat hunting and forensics. Cynet deploys in hours and simplifies management with automated monitoring to complement any sized staff.
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection (EPP) for Business with 23 reviews while Cynet is ranked 2nd in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 10 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.2, while Cynet is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "Easy to set up with excellent trend analytics and isolation feature". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cynet writes "Very user friendly but must expand threat detection for new threats". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, Microsoft Defender Antivirus, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Sophos Intercept X, whereas Cynet is most compared with Darktrace, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne, Sophos Intercept X and Microsoft Defender Antivirus. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Cynet report.
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.