Compare Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. FireEye Endpoint Security

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Anonymous User
Find out what your peers are saying about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. FireEye Endpoint Security and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
447,439 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"Its most valuable features are its scalability and advanced threat protection for customers.""I am told that we get over 100 million emails a month. This filters them down and allows only somewhere about three million emails, which is a great help.""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."

More Cisco AMP for Endpoints Pros »

"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.""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 anti-exploit is impenetrable. We chose Traps because it is the only product that we were not able to get anything past.""The multi-layered approach to the product gives you confidence that it will stop exploits, ransomware, worms, or viruses from compromising endpoints, essentially providing peace of mind.""If the user leaves our premises or network, Palo Alto Traps will still be on that endpoint and will still apply our policies.""After deploying Traps, we saw the performance of the network improve by 65 to 70 percent.""Traps is quite a stable product. Once it was properly deployed and configured, you have nothing to be worried about.""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."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pros »

"It is very valuable in finding out unknown malware.""The most valuable feature of this solution is its simplicity.""The most valuable network security feature is the network sandbox solution. This sandbox feature works on traffic flow.""The investigation and forensic analysis have been most helpful.""The most valuable feature is the integration between environments.""The exploit guard and malware protection features are very useful. The logon tracker feature is also very useful. They have also given new modules such as logout backup, process backup. We ordered these modules from the FireEye market place, and we have installed these modules. We are currently exploring these features."

More FireEye Endpoint Security Pros »

Cons
"We would like to have an API integration with a SIEM solution, because as far as I know, it currently hasn't yet been released.""I would like them to add whatever makes filtering more advanced in scanning and blocking for malware in emails.""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."

More Cisco AMP for Endpoints Cons »

"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.""They have the worst support, as a company, that I have ever worked with, as they are difficult to get a hold of and keep on the phone. They don't know what they are talking about when you get them on the phone. They don't like to respond to messages when you send them to them. They like to "research problems" for weeks on end, then pass you off to somebody else.""Previously, the endpoint would leave the environment, not being on our VPN, essentially unable to interact with the server to upload files. It was unable to retrieve new file verdicts. It was using a thing called "local analysis" to determine if something was a malicious file or not. There was no dynamic analysis.""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.""There are some default policies which sometimes affect our applications and cause them to run around. In the hotel industry, we use a different type of data versus Oracle and SQL. By default, there are some policies which stop us from running properly. Because of this, the support level is also not that strong. We have to wait to get a results.""There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, is not user-friendly.""Managing the product should be easier.""Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Cons »

"I hope the solution can be used in cloud systems going forward.""The integration and display of the dashboards have to be done better.""They could also increase or improve the scalability because to my knowledge the biggest bandwidth can only support up to 10 gigs of input.""If you have another endpoint product running on the same machine, you have to fine tune functions from FireEye to avoid performance and user experience issues.""I would like to see simple processing and reporting online.""The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux. We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap."

More FireEye Endpoint Security Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"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."

More Cisco AMP for Endpoints Pricing and Cost Advice »

"I feel it is fairly priced.""The pricing seems fair, and I do like the licensing model. You use wherever they are, and it is elastic.""We didn't have to pay any additional fee for the cloud instance. It just came with the renewal, which was nice.""It is "expensive" and flexible.""Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription. This is attributed to OPEX savings, as security teams spent less time trying to identify and isolate malware for analysis as a result of a reduction in malware incidents, false positives, and breach avoidance.""I did PoCs on products called Cylance and CrowdStrike. Although, I consider these products and they were also good, when it come to cost and budgetary factors, Traps has been proven to be better than the other two products. It is quite cost-effective and delivers all the entire solution which we require.""It is cost-effective compared to similar solutions. It fits for the small businesses through to the big businesses.""The return on investment is from the user side because we have seen the performance of it increase the delivery time of the product if we are using too many web-based and on-premise applications. In indirect ways, we saw the return of investment in terms of performance and user satisfaction increase."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice »

"The current pricing is much better than before because they now offer product-related promotions along with some changes in product licensing. The new pricing model is better than before.""It is a yearly subscription-based product, which includes the license and hardware. There is also a subscription for technical support up to five years."

More FireEye Endpoint Security Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection (EPP) for Business solutions are best for your needs.
447,439 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features.
Top Answer: Nice to have URL management, password protection of the app, more details of the machine & user running the app.
Top Answer: The primary use case is for endpoint protection. For the larger deployments, we use it for our policy enforcement as… more »
Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
Learn
Cisco
Palo Alto Networks
FireEye
Overview

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.

FireEye Endpoint Security is an integrated endpoint solution that detects, prevents and responds effectively to known malware and threats traditional anti-virus endpoint security products miss. It expands endpoint visibility and provides contextual frontline intelligence to help analysts automate protection, quickly determine the exact scope and level of any attack activity and adapt defenses as needed.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco AMP for Endpoints
Learn more about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks
Learn more about FireEye Endpoint Security
Sample Customers
Heritage Bank, Mobile County Schools, NHL University, Thunder Bay Regional, Yokogawa Electric, Sam Houston State University, First Financial BankCBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBankTech Resources Limited, Globe Telecom, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company20%
Government13%
University7%
Comms Service Provider7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider29%
Computer Software Company24%
Government5%
Manufacturing Company3%
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company14%
Mining And Metals Company14%
Retailer7%
Financial Services Firm7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company29%
Comms Service Provider20%
Media Company5%
Government5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company30%
Comms Service Provider20%
Government11%
Media Company4%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise16%
Large Enterprise48%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business22%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise58%
REVIEWERS
Small Business27%
Midsize Enterprise27%
Large Enterprise45%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business27%
Midsize Enterprise27%
Large Enterprise46%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. FireEye Endpoint Security and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
447,439 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection (EPP) for Business with 20 reviews while FireEye Endpoint Security is ranked 12th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 6 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while FireEye Endpoint Security is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "Its multi-layer approach helps my organization with anti-malware, exploit protection, and restrictions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of FireEye Endpoint Security writes "A simple to use, yet effective solution for protecting us against malware and other threats". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Symantec End-user Endpoint Security, Microsoft Windows Defender, Carbon Black CB Defense and Trend Micro Apex One, whereas FireEye Endpoint Security is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Carbon Black CB Defense, SentinelOne and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint . See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. FireEye Endpoint Security report.

See our list of .

We monitor all Endpoint Protection (EPP) for Business 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.