We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and ESET Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Although both solutions received high marks from users, Cortex XDR reviewers feel that it is an expensive product. ESET Endpoint Security is the winner in this comparison since its reviewers feel that it is a cost-effective solution.
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"The stability is very good."
"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."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"It integrates well into the environment."
"The anti-exploit is impenetrable. We chose Traps because it is the only product that we were not able to get anything past."
"The most valuable for us is the correlation feature."
"The behavior-based detection feature is valuable."
"Cortex XDR is a simple platform that's easy for administrators and users. You have a lot of flexibility to change or customize the features."
"The solution allows control over the user and his machine through Cortex XDR security policies."
"Its interface and pricing are most valuable. It is better than other vendors in terms of security."
"Since they've done their most recent update, the ease to isolate endpoints is valuable. If we find one where there is a virus on it, we can easily isolate it. We don't even have to contact the user. We don't have to manually take them off the network. We can easily isolate them."
"The solution is stable."
"The stability is great."
"This solution has a traditional antivirus, I believe that signature-based detection is most valuable."
"A feature we like is setting the GUI of ESET Endpoint Security/ESET File Security to silent mode because some servers and clients can have performance issues."
"The solution has a very good endpoint feature."
"It's scalable."
"The protection and device control features are the most valuable. I found its user interface and integration pretty good. It is very user friendly as compared to other products."
"All of our devices are integrated with the solution."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The support needs improvement."
"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."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"The solution is not stable."
"In terms of areas of improvement, we have not completed our review of the product. We're also looking at other products. So, it's a little bit hard to tell what could be different because we have not completed the review of this product, but based on our experience so far, its implementation is quite complex."
"It is not a suitable solution if you are looking for a single product with multiple features such as DLP, encryption, rollback, etc."
"Impact on system performance is horrible, adding a lot of delays for users."
"There is a severe gap in functionality between Windows, Linux, and Mac versions. For example all folder restriction settings are Windows only. Traps 5.0+ does not have SAML / LDAP integration."
"It's not an ideal choice for smaller businesses, as you need a minimum of 200 endpoints to even use the solution at all."
"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."
"The playbooks could be improved to include more functionalities or actions."
"It is a complex solution to implement."
"I am a MAC user and my asset cybersecurity is continuously displaying warnings that I am not using their firewall."
"The adware module could be improved."
"A few times, we have had problems with downloading an agent. We had to try multiple times and multiple uploads."
"ESET Endpoint Security could improve EDR integration."
"There are some new antivirus technologies that rely on AI, artificial intelligence. ESET does not have this technology right now."
"The product could have better integration with third-party products that would help extend functionality."
"There are other features you can add on to help make the security stronger, however, they should offer better security even on a basic level."
"If I were in an environment that required a large-scale deployment then I would choose another solution over ESET."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More ESET Endpoint Protection Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 80 reviews while ESET Endpoint Protection Platform is ranked 9th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 96 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while ESET Endpoint Protection Platform is rated 8.2. 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 ESET Endpoint Protection Platform writes "Easy to set up with good security and rapidly improving capabilities". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace and Symantec Endpoint Security, whereas ESET Endpoint Protection Platform is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Symantec Endpoint Security. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. ESET Endpoint Protection Platform 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.