Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Cybereason Endpoint Detecti...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (35th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (24th)
Palo Alto Networks Cortex X...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
47
Ranking in other categories
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (2nd), SOC as a Service (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is designed for Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and holds a mindshare of 0.9%, down 1.1% compared to last year.
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, on the other hand, focuses on Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR), holds 10.4% mindshare, down 12.6% since last year.
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

AtulChaurasia - PeerSpot reviewer
Scalable platform with intuitive features for detecting malicious files
The initial setup process is straightforward. We have to install the agent, create a package, and deploy it on servers. It has a prebuilt console managed by the cloud team of Cybereason. We don't have to worry about the console and concentrate on endpoint implementation. It takes ten days to deploy it on 10,000 devices.
NikhilSharma2 - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to multiple playbooks to fetch data from multiple firewalls and utomated several tasks, including vulnerability scans and SOCL (Security Orchestration, Automation
Recently, they started implementing microservices in XSOAR, which has improved quality and addressed previous issues. However, they should focus more on licensing costs. The user licensing fees are quite high. For example, I received a quote for XSOAR, and it was $12,000 per user per year. If you have a SOC team of 30 members/analysts, you're looking at a substantial expense. They should consider reducing these costs since this high pricing seems to be more about profit. So, there is room for improvement in the pricing. Moreover, the reporting and dashboard features are decent but could be improved. The user interface (UI) is quite heavy and takes time to load, which is a major drawback.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"The solution is efficient."
"What I find most valuable is the clarity of the platform."
"The initial setup is not overly complicated."
"I haven't had any issues with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"It gives all the information in a clear response."
"The initial setup was easy and straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the capability of the command used by the machine so that we see the kind of performance that is running."
"What I like most about Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is how user-friendly it is for development. It is much simpler to work with compared to similar tools I've used."
"I am satisfied with the product overall."
"Each incident collected is orchestrated with automation that selects the security analyst to be involved, or provides complex execution plans for managing security incidents."
"The automation part and the playbook creation part are awesome. The way it is responding to the customers and incidents is also very good. In the SOC environment, I guess it will carry out around 50% of the work."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Cortex XSOAR's most valuable features are the playbooks, custom integration, the machine-learning model, and the layout, classifier, and mapper."
"The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR are the remote controller from the workstation that can execute commands and isolate the systems outside of the network. Only the system with an internet connection can execute the task because the main console is in the cloud."
"The product is quite easy to use."
 

Cons

"The integration with Microsoft solutions and Microsoft capabilities needs to be improved."
"There is room for improvement in the product features related to device control, particularly USB management."
"The deployment on individual endpoints is more geared toward larger organizations. It might prove to be a bit too complicated for a smaller organization. You need to know what you're doing when you're deploying the sensor."
"The reporting feature needs improvement."
"Reporting could be a bit more granular so that we had the ability to check regions and countries. I just noticed that, for instance, if I look at our servers, it's either "contained" or it's "not contained". I don't have the option, for instance, to look at countries. It only allows me to look at users as one big group."
"Compared to our previous endpoint, we have a lot more false positives and a lot more duplication of alerts. So we're chasing more alerts."
"Its Microsoft PowerShell protections still need some compatibility improvements. We have run across just a few. It is compatible with 90% of what we have in our network, but there is that 10% that we are still struggling with as far as compatibility with the type of PowerShell scripts needed to run our day-to-day business."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"The solution is very expensive."
"Corex XSOAR could be improved by reducing the time it takes to process large amounts of data and increasing the number of integrations."
"I think they should increase their collaboration base."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve the look, feel, and management of the cloud console. Additionally, the user could be more easily integrated."
"The integration could be better. Cortex, for example, does not work with iPhone."
"There is room for improvement in support. The response time could be faster."
"The platform’s setup procedures could be streamlined compared to one of its competitors."
"Creating complex playbooks using coding languages, such as Python, could be easier."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We considered a few other solutions. Some were ridiculously overpriced, while others didn't have solutions for Mac endpoints. That was a deal-breaker because most of our organization is on Mac. It came down to two vendors: Cybereason and another. They had similar pitches and almost identical approaches, but in the end, Cybereason gave us the best value for our money."
"In terms of cost, this is a good choice for our needs."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing an eight."
"The pricing is manageable."
"Though it is not the cheapest solution but it fits our budget. We pay an annual licensing fee."
"I had to go through a third-party to purchase it, which I wasn't really pleased about."
"I do not have experience with the licensing of the product."
"In terms of pricing, it's a good solution."
"Palo Alto offers significant discounts to customers who purchase the products repeatedly."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is comparable to other solutions in the market."
"My company did not make any payments towards the licensing costs attached to the product since we were only using its pilot version."
"It is expensive."
"There is a yearly license required for this solution and it is expensive."
"There is a perception that it is priced very high compared to other solutions."
"The pricing is fair. The pricing reflects the value and feature set it offers."
"The solution's pricing needs improvement."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.
859,687 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response?
Comparison with other products showed it be cheaper than some larger competitors. Set up cost for us were cheaper as we already had users experienced with the product in other business units. Initi...
What is your primary use case for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response?
We use it to improve detection in the whole industrial sector. We are a big energy company. Across multiple endpoints, we deploy the EDR to secure all, improve detection, and also attempt to automa...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
Even though customers often comment on the price, the potential savings come from managing a large number of security events with a limited number of analysts. This leads to economic advantages des...
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
For Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, there is always room for improvement. One of the significant issues we encounter is system slowdown when we receive an influx of alerts, which inhibits how quic...
 

Also Known As

Cybereason EDR, Cybereason Deep Detect & Respond
Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Lockheed Martin, Spark Capital, DocuSign, Softbank Capital
Cellcom Israel, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, esri, Cylance, Flatiron Health, Veeva, ADT Cybersecurity
Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Microsoft and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR). Updated: January 2025.
859,687 professionals have used our research since 2012.