No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

BigFix vs OpenText Core Endpoint Protection​ comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Net...
Sponsored
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
115
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (5th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (4th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
BigFix
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
24th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
100
Ranking in other categories
Configuration Management (10th), Patch Management (7th), Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) (10th), Autonomous Endpoint Management (5th)
OpenText Core Endpoint Prot...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
35th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.9%, up from 3.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of BigFix is 1.7%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Endpoint Protection​ is 1.7%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks3.9%
BigFix1.7%
OpenText Core Endpoint Protection​1.7%
Other92.7%
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

ABHISHEK_SINGH - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Process Expert at A.P. Moller - Maersk
Gained full visibility and streamlined threat detection through behavior-based insights and AI integration
Initially, we got to have a lot of false positives when we onboarded, but nowadays it's quite smooth. We have fine-tuned our security policies and allowed different levels of policies to get rid of those false positives. Currently, we are getting a fairly good amount of incidents that are not false positives or benign, but actionable items. The process is streamlined. In the initial days, the operations used to get involved in a lot of benign and other activities, but now the process is streamlined. We are leveraging the auto-detection and remediation plans. The operations teams are now more involved in other business roles as well, not just looking into the logs and fetching out what's happening there. They have fixed a lot of things. Initially, they didn't have IAC code drift detection, cloud posture management, or security posture management, but they have those now. They purchased different vendors and did a merger with that. They have now Prisma Cloud that gets integrated and now they are working with Cortex Cloud. Everything that was negative has now been addressed, and the product altogether looks to be in a very better and mature shape now. Currently, it's more or less detecting the workloads with AI-based best practices. Since most organizations are consuming AI agents and other things, we are looking forward to seeing what other feature enhancements Palo Alto can support in that.
InderjeetSingh4 - PeerSpot reviewer
Administrator at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
End-to-end automation has simplified patching and software deployment across thousands of servers
There is one feature in BigFix called the automation patch policy that requires enhancement. When an action is initiated through the patch policy, it appears on the console but arrives in chunks. When targeting hundreds of servers from the patch policy, the actions come in chunks such as ten out of six, ten out of nine, or ten out of fifteen. This fragmented approach creates a significant challenge for the patching team to monitor the action status. I would recommend that the development team provide a single action or one to two actions instead of multiple actions requiring individual monitoring. A broad status update could be provided to the client indicating the overall progress of the patch policy implementation rather than requiring monitoring of every individual action. This would reduce the bandwidth required by the team to track multiple actions on the console.
reviewer2584380 - PeerSpot reviewer
vCIO At Grove Networks Inc. at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Improving threat detection is critical for enhanced protection
We use Webroot Business Endpoint Protection as a NextGen antivirus solution for our clients. It's included in the contract we have with our clients as a cost-effective option for antivirus protection Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is cost-effective for rolling it out to all of our clients,…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The normal protection was really effective, and we detected situations that if we didn't have Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, it's highly likely that we would have been affected, but it protected the infrastructure."
"Their XDR agent and their behavioral indicators of compromise (BIOC) are pretty nice. Their managed threat hunting is also pretty nice. They also have WildFire, which is a service for actively looking for malware. It's quite useful."
"The stability of this product is very good."
"I don't have to do much monitoring with it; I don't have to have anybody manually looking at this, it gives us reports, and it lets us know if something needs to be addressed, and we can easily address it."
"Cortex XDR lets us manage several clients from the same console, and its endpoint defense is more advanced than traditional antivirus."
"The initial setup is pretty easy."
"Its ability to react to cyber data attacks is awesome."
"The tool is designed to scale for large enterprises and handle large volumes of data."
"The most valuable feature is the patching."
"We rely on BigFix as part of our consulting engagements. It's more efficient from a visibility and discovery standpoint on the initial phase, the consulting engagement. It also increases our efficiencies on the remediation phase of our engagements."
"Our services are easy to manage with BigFix."
"We are able to go from patching thousands of machines by twenty to thirty people to one person."
"It has improved reliability upon delivery of software and has also helped reduce software expenses. The extensibility of BigFix helps to create custom solutions where we may have considered purchasing something instead."
"BigFix is incredibly fast and accurate in patching, reporting, and remediation."
"The best feature of BigFix is its multi-platform support."
"BigFix's patch management automation feature is impressive."
"The initial setup is not complex at all. It's very straightforward."
"The solution is very light, works well on our PCs, the dashboard is very good, and we find the pricing to be very affordable."
"I haven't observed any of the instabilities in the solution. It is a stable solution."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It took five minutes. I installed the solution myself."
"I rate the initial setup phase a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy."
"Probably, compared to other antivirus programs, what we like about it is it is lightweight."
"Doesn't consume resources or affect the computer performance at all."
"It is an easy-to-use and easy-to-configure product."
 

Cons

"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."
"However, if you do not have Palo Alto in your environment, you are paying these additional services just for Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, so it is not a cost-effective solution."
"It'll help if customization was easier."
"It should support more mobile operating systems. That is one of the cons of their infrastructure right now."
"The deployment is pretty hard."
"I feel that it should not be a licensed activity because a feature should allow us to see applications running on end devices."
"The solution eats memory of the computer, unlike anything I've ever seen."
"The playbooks could be improved to include more functionalities or actions."
"Web reports. The interface for web reports is still pretty basic, and really hasn't changed in the seven years that we've had the product, so that would be one thing that would be really nice."
"I would like to see more emphasis on using the web console, to have the same power as the full fat client console that they do they now. It's a lighter way to log in and it would be faster for our operators to do their work. The console tends to take a long time for a large number of clients."
"License management isn't quite as easy as it should be to deal with the licensing. You need to take the server down to import the new licenses which I find to be annoying."
"We need a much better multi-tenant option."
"A major feature that I think they need to add to Detect is application whitelisting."
"I have concerns about BigFix's pricing, which I find to be slightly on the higher side."
"To make it a ten they should improve the licensing. Second, if they could have one environment for everything it would be nice. For you to install compliance you need to install the server, and then you add the modules. For you to install inventory you install the server and then you add the modules. It's not easy to do. When I was doing it before I learned it, it was not straight forward."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"Technical support is not the best. It's hard to get a hold of them if we need help. It's something that definitely needs improvement."
"There should be a Webroot Business Endpoint Protection mobile app."
"The solution could improve by providing better ransomware protection."
"We need more control over when upgrades to the app are rolled out."
"Areas for improvement would be the reporting system in the admin console."
"I think the one bad point about this product is that we did not find a way for Webroot to generate reports or schedule automatic reports to be sent to clients."
"The only complaint I have with Webroot is its inability to prevent UoD phishing and its inability to check against bots or block anti-attacks. Plus the URL server is in zero-definition."
"One of the biggest pain points is that it's not really ransomware-oriented. They will be able to catch some, but that's where Sentinel One is a better player compared to Webroot."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I don't have any issues with the pricing. We are satisfied with the price."
"The price is on the higher side, but it's okay."
"The cost of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is $55 to $90 USD per endpoint per month."
"It has a yearly renewal."
"The price of the product is not very economical."
"It's the most expensive solution, but features-wise, it's quite strong. It's very good for protection, so the results are very good in the case of protection. I would rate it a two out of ten in terms of pricing."
"Compared to CrowdStrike, Cortex XDR is an expensive solution."
"This is an expensive solution."
"Its price is very reasonable."
"So, the pricing is slightly more expensive than the others. I have to keep buying licenses every time I add a new device."
"I can estimate the reduced cost of servers maintenance to approximatively $500,000."
"The license is subscription-based."
"I would stay with the Managed Virtual Server license model, which is a 1-to-1 license per OS whether it is virtual or physical."
"Compliance, inventory, and licensing are really pricey. They should lower the price. It discourages users from getting onboard."
"The tool's price continues to go up. The cost per endpoint can vary, ranging from approximately 30 to 80 dollars per year. Compared to other products, pricing is in the middle. You need to buy an additional database license, but most users already have it."
"The price is very fair."
"Get a trial, then a multi-year license."
"I can't recall the exact pricing, but I believe there is a monthly fee of $20-30 per user."
"We evaluate other options using multiple choices, best value, management and functionality."
"The solution is very cost-effective."
"We are on an annual subscription for the use of Webroot Business Endpoint Protection."
"Webroot is less expensive than SentinelOne."
"With Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, I can select a yearly billing cycle."
"If you purchase for clients, then you are the managing billing entity. It's better to either get a monthly subscription check from your clients, or to prepay for the year (so as to not keep cash in reserve to pay the bill each month) IMHO."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
908,858 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Construction Company
6%
Construction Company
13%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business46
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise54
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise68
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business35
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise2
 

Questions from the Community

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. Sentinel One
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks. ...
Comparing CrowdStrike Falcon to Cortex XDR (Palo Alto)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions th...
How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface,...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BigFix?
I rate the price for BigFix as medium, neither low nor high.
What needs improvement with BigFix?
There is one feature in BigFix called the automation patch policy that requires enhancement. When an action is initia...
What is your primary use case for BigFix?
My current use case involves being one of the products and one of the clients implementing this tool.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is probably on the cheaper side, so I would rate their pricing a one or a two ou...
What needs improvement with Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
Webroot Business Endpoint Protection needs to improve its ability to detect threats. It does not do what it's adverti...
What is your primary use case for Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
We use Webroot Business Endpoint Protection as a NextGen antivirus solution for our clients. It's included in the con...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
Tivoli Endpoint Manager
Webroot SecureAnywhere Business Endpoint Protection
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
US Foods, Penn State, St Vincent's Health US Foods, Sabadell Bank, SunTrust, Australia Sydney, Stemac, Capgemini, WNS Global Services, Jebsen & Jessen, CenterBeam, Strauss, Christian Hospital Centre, Brit Insurance, Career Education Corporation
Mytech Partners
Find out what your peers are saying about BigFix vs. OpenText Core Endpoint Protection​ and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,858 professionals have used our research since 2012.