We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Compare Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Featured Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and other solutions. Updated: November 2021.
554,676 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
"Any alert that we get is an actionable alert. Immediately, there is information that we can just click through, see the point in time, what happened, what caused it, and what automatic actions were taken. We can then choose to take any manual actions, if we want, or start our investigation. We're no longer looking at digging into information or wading through hundreds of incidents. There's a list which says where the status is assigned, e.g., under investigation or investigation finished. That is all in the console. It has taken away a lot of the administration, which we would normally be doing, and integrated it into the console for us.""The ability to detonate a particular problem in a sandbox environment and understand what the effects are, is helpful. We're trying, for example, to determine, when people send information in, if an attachment is legitimate or not. You just have to open it. If you can do that in a secure sandbox environment, that's an invaluable feature. What you would do otherwise would be very risky and tedious.""One of the best features of AMP is its cloud feature. It doesn't matter where the device is in regards to whether it's inside or outside of your network environment, especially right now when everybody's remote and taken their laptops home. You don't have to be VPNed into the environment for AMP to work. AMP will work anywhere in the world, as long as it has an Internet connection. You get protection and reporting with it. No matter where the device is, AMP has still got coverage on it and is protecting it. You still have the ability to manage and remediate things. The cloud feature is the magic bullet. This is what makes the solution a valuable tool as far as I'm concerned.""The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection.""Among the most valuable features are the exclusions. And on the scalability side, we can integrate well with the SIEM orchestration engine and a number of applications that are proprietary or open source.""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.""The solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features.""The solution makes it possible to see a threat once and block it everywhere across all endpoints and the entire security platform. It has the ability to block right down to the file and application level across all devices based on policies, such as, blacklisting and whitelisting of software and applications. This is good. Its strength is the ability to identify threats very quickly, then lock them and the network down and block the threats across the organization and all devices, which is what you want. You don't want to be spending time working out how to block something. You want to block something very quickly, letting that flow through to all the devices and avoiding the same scenario on different operating systems."

More Cisco Secure Endpoint Pros »

"The management capabilities, allow an IT organization to get quite a good picture of attempted cyber attacks.""I like the centralized console and the predictive analysis it does of malware. It is very stable and also scalable.""The interface is easy to use and it is more up to date than our previous solution.""Being a cloud solution it is very flexible in serving internal and external connections and a broad range of devices.""The solution doesn't need a high level of technical training.""It's a nice product that's stable and scalable.""It is easy to use.""Its ability to react to cyber data attacks is awesome. That is pretty much the use of it. What blows your mind is the ability to access your assets remotely and see what is actually going on with them. You can not only see them in a console. You can also react very rapidly to your assets that are compromised."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pros »

Cons
"We don't have issues. We think that Cisco covers all of the security aspects on the market. They continue to innovate in the right way.""I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products.""The room for improvement would be on event notifications. I have mine tuned fairly well. I do feel that if you subscribe to all the event notification types out-of-the-box, or don't really go through and take the time to filter out events, the notifications can become overwhelming with information. Sometimes, when you're overwhelmed with information, you just say, "I'm not going to look at anything because I'm receiving so much." I recommend the vendor come up with a white paper on the best practices for event notifications.""We have had some problems with updates not playing nice with our environment. This is important, because if there is a new version, we need to test it thoroughly before it goes into production. We cannot just say, "There's a new version. It's not going to give us any problems." With the complexity of the solution using multiple engines for multiple tasks, it can sometimes cause performance issues on our endpoints. Therefore, we need to test it before we deploy. That takes one to three days before we can be certain that the new version plays nice with our environment.""The GUI needs improvement, it's not good.""The connector updates are very easily done now, and that's improving. Previously, the connector had an issue, where almost every time it needed to be updated, it required a machine reboot. This was always a bit of an inconvenience and a bug. Because with a lot of software now, you don't need to do that and shouldn't need to be rebooting all the time.""In Orbital, there are tons of prebuilt queries, but there is not a lot of information in lay terms. There isn't enough information to help us with what we're looking for and why we are looking for it with this query. There are probably a dozen queries in there that really focus on what I need to focus on, but they are not always easy to find the first time through.""The thing I hate the most, which they have not fixed, is when it creates duplicate entries within a console. If you have a computer and you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, or you upgrade your agent from version 6 to 7, it creates a new instance in there instead of updating the information. Instead of paying a license for one computer, I have to license two computers until I manually go in, search for all the duplicate entries, and clean them out myself."

More Cisco Secure Endpoint Cons »

"It would be good to have a better way to search for a file within the UI.""Although I would say this product is highly-rated, it could probably do more because nothing does everything that you want.""It is not a suitable solution if you are looking for a single product with multiple features such as DLP, encryption, rollback, etc.""Cortex does not offer an on-premises solution. However, some customers would prefer not to be on the cloud. It would be ideal if it could offer something on-prem as well.""In an upcoming release, the solution could improve by proving hard disk encryption. If it could support this it would be a complete solution.""We have found that there are times Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks does not detect some of the viruses, we have to use another protection solution called Kaspersky.""Limited remote connection.""I would like to see some additional features related to email protection included."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"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.""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.""We have a license for 3,000 users and if we get up to 3,100 users, it doesn't stop working, but on the next renewal date you're supposed to go in there and add that extra 100 licenses. It's really good that they let you grow and expand and then pay for it. Sometimes, with other products, you overuse a license and they just don't work.""The pricing and licensing are reasonable. The cost of AMP for Endpoints is inline with all the other software that has a monthly endpoint cost. It might be a little bit higher than other antivirus type products, but we're only talking about a dollar a month per user. I don't see that cost as being an issue if it's going to give us the confidence and security that we're looking for. We have had a lot of success and happiness with what we're using, so there's no point in changing.""There is also the Cisco annual subscription plus my management time in terms of what I do with the Cisco product. I spend a minimal amount of time on it though, just rolling out updates as they need them and monitoring the console a couple of times a day to ensure nothing is out of control. Cost-wise, we are quite happy with it.""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.""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.""In our case, it is a straightforward annual payment through our Enterprise Agreement."

More Cisco Secure Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice »

"Very costly product.""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.""Its pricing is kind of in line with its competitors and everybody else out there.""It has a yearly renewal.""It's about $55 per license on a yearly basis.""If one wishes to work with another team or large number of users at a future point, he must purchase a license for them.""I don't have any issues with the pricing. We are satisfied with the price."

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

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
554,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection.
Top Answer: Licensing fees are on a yearly basis and I am happy with the pricing.
Top Answer: The GUI needs improvement, it's not good. There are false positives in emails. At times, the emails are blocked and detected as malware when they are not. They should work on some of the signatures… more »
Top Answer: Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks. The ability to reverse damage caused by ransomware with minimal interruptions to… more »
Top Answer: Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions that are very scalable, secure, and user-friendly. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto offers… more »
Top Answer: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface, applies behavioral-based endpoint protection and response, and includes risk-based… more »
Ranking
Views
21,099
Comparisons
13,817
Reviews
13
Average Words per Review
1,847
Rating
8.8
Views
38,041
Comparisons
27,747
Reviews
24
Average Words per Review
435
Rating
8.2
Comparisons
Also Known As
Cisco AMP for Endpoints
Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
Learn More
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.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco Secure Endpoint
Learn more about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks
Sample Customers
Heritage Bank, Mobile County Schools, NHL University, Thunder Bay Regional, Yokogawa Electric, Sam Houston State University, First Financial Bank
CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company19%
Government13%
Manufacturing Company13%
Financial Services Firm6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider24%
Computer Software Company23%
Government7%
Financial Services Firm5%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm13%
Computer Software Company13%
Consumer Goods Company13%
Healthcare Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company24%
Comms Service Provider22%
Government7%
Energy/Utilities Company4%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise18%
Large Enterprise46%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business28%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise51%
REVIEWERS
Small Business44%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise36%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise15%
Large Enterprise49%
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and other solutions. Updated: November 2021.
554,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Cisco Secure Endpoint is ranked 4th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 14 reviews while Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 6th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 30 reviews. Cisco Secure Endpoint is rated 8.8, while Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Endpoint writes "We have gained more visibility into what's going on because it detects a lot of threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "Has a centralized console and does predictive analysis of malware". Cisco Secure Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne, Carbon Black CB Defense and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, whereas Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, SentinelOne and Check Point Harmony Endpoint. See our Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks report.

See our list of best Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) vendors.

We monitor all Endpoint Protection for Business (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.