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

BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity vs WatchGuard EPDR comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 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
6.7
Number of Reviews
118
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (5th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (4th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
BlackBerry Cylance Cybersec...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
30th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
44
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
WatchGuard EPDR
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
16th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.8%, up from 3.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity is 1.6%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of WatchGuard EPDR is 1.5%, down from 2.1% 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 Networks3.8%
WatchGuard EPDR1.5%
BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity1.6%
Other93.1%
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.
Sooraj Makkancherrry - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Operations Manager at Philips
Doesn't have daily updates, which is important for healthcare IT
I face challenges with the exclusion policy - it still scans folders we told it not to, causing issues. When we contact support, they tell us to update the latest agent, but we can't do that immediately due to medical device protocols and validation testing. I wish support would try to understand our issues better instead of giving this standard response. The machine learning feature they use often tells us to upgrade the agent or add things to the exclusion list, which isn't unacceptable. It's a very good and new technology as a tool and antivirus. But sometimes, it doesn't work properly with our medical devices and products, quarantining files it shouldn't even after we add them to exclusions. This is tricky for us.
Petri Alhainen - PeerSpot reviewer
Administrator at Sulbana Oy
Balanced endpoint protection has improved forensic visibility and speeds threat investigation
I think there's always something that needs to be improved about WatchGuard EPDR, but I don't have something specific to say that you should do this or that. They are listening to the users, so they are fixing things as they've been found. I don't have any example to give. The pricing is always a thing where you need to be in the line that the balance to get it right is a challenging thing with WatchGuard EPDR. If you have good features, then you can have a little bigger price, but if you just get the balance right, that's important. I haven't used automated incident response in WatchGuard EPDR.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's a nice product that's stable and scalable."
"Implementing Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks has had a significant impact on my security analyst workload because it becomes much easier."
"Based on my experience, I would recommend Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks to other people."
"The integrations are out-of-the-box, as are the playbooks."
"Has great threat detection capabilities."
"Traps is quite a stable product. Once it was properly deployed and configured, you have nothing to be worried about."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to rapidly detect certain hardware files."
"The ability to kind of stitch everything together and see the actual complete picture is very useful. I guess you'd call it a playbook. Some people call it the forensics analysis of what was happening on particular endpoints when they detected some malicious behavior, and what transpired before that to cause that. It is also very user friendly. The way they have done everything and integrated all the solutions that they've purchased over the years to make it a very seamless, effective product is very good. One thing about Palo Alto is that they take the products or services that they purchase and make them seamless for the end user as compared to some companies that purchase other companies and then just kind of have their products off to the side or keep different interfaces. Palo Alto doesn't do that."
"The product works pretty well; it does a good job catching viruses, and while we haven't had a chance to test against any kind of ransomware attack, I know it works great and I'm not worried about its capabilities in that respect."
"CylancePROTECT works really well with the way we work."
"CylancePROTECT is a fairly decent antivirus."
"We chose the solution because it doesn't have daily updates, which is important for us in healthcare IT, where network usage and connectivity to hospitals matter."
"With Cylance AI and Machine Learning, it's ensuring that all types of malware, PUP (Potential Unwanted Programs) and Memory Protection your endpoint devices are fully protected, even with day zero threats."
"The most valuable features of CylancePROTECT are its powerful machine-learning capabilities and predictive intelligence."
"Blackberry Protect offers endpoint protection, it's easy to deploy, and it's scalable and stable."
"I like the AI and mathematical components that they use, and I like the pre-execution method of protection that prevents infection."
"It is stable, and the performance is good."
"What I appreciate the most about WatchGuard EPDR is that with the managed detection and response system, when there is an alert about the product running, the turnaround time for enabling it is less than two hours."
"WatchGuard is commendable for its work on threats."
"Reduced the number of malware/virus issue encounters and dashboard alerts providing better visibility."
"Their remote management (RMM) is very good."
"It is remarkably easy to deploy."
"The interface is great."
"The feature I find most valuable is the advance search engine."
 

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."
"On the pricing aspect, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks needs to have a more reasonable rate, particularly for customers in Sri Lanka and Asian countries."
"Being able to filter the events to see those that are related to the actual alert would save time spent by the engineer."
"Cortex XDR should have a lightweight agent, and the agent size should not be heavy."
"It takes time to scan the servers and devices."
"The price could be a little lower."
"I have seen lagging with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. There was one time when we faced a threat actor trying to gain access to our system. When our team utilized the tool, we were all on the same dashboard and we faced a lag issue at that time of around five minutes, which was quite significant."
"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."
"The initial setup was quite complicated, it took us a month or two with the reseller doing a good job assisting us with the initial configuration."
"​Work on the math model. We are catching a lot of false positives, which gets to be a pain at the start of a deployment."
"I would say one thing that they might need to bring in is protection for mobile devices."
"It was not effective. There were a lot of false positives, even when we use Adobe, and everybody uses Adobe, which is not a threat."
"They could improve on the false positives, reporting and whitelisting features."
"The process of whitelisting a script that you want to be able to run can be a little bit difficult, or awkward."
"The stability could be improved."
"The initial deployment was quite complicated."
"Only the DNS filtering part could be improved, and nothing else apart from this needs correction."
"It is hard to install and deploy on a Linux operating system."
"I would like to see better data protection, for instance using fingerprints to log in."
"An area for improvement would be the software deployment to seamlessly deploy software packages across multiple machines simultaneously, and to enhance the remote monitoring capabilities."
"They need to offer a clear dashboard so you can see everything everywhere all at once."
"For some urgent updates, I don't like the need for the tool to be frequently restarted."
"I think there was a little complexity in deployment when I actually deployed WatchGuard EPDR."
"The gap between the two final conclusions is a problem, whether or not a file is known to be malware or is known to be safe."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I feel it is fairly priced."
"It is present, but when compared to other competitive products, I would say it is not less expensive; however, when all of the other added values are considered, the price is reasonable."
"We pay about $50,000 USD per year for a bundle that includes Cortex XDR."
"The price is on the higher side, but it's okay."
"The price of the solution is high for the license and in general."
"I don't like that they have different types of licenses."
"The pricing seems fair, and I do like the licensing model. You use wherever they are, and it is elastic."
"If one wishes to work with another team or large number of users at a future point, he must purchase a license for them."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
"This cost of the license is approximately $5 USD monthly per user."
"It is expensive, but not unreasonable."
"Do not get hung up on price. You pay for what you get and expensive will hurt one time, where cheap will hurt forever, especially if you fall victim to a ransom attack, etc.​"
"It's not so heavily priced; rather, it's average and decent."
"The monthly fee is $55 USD per user."
"The solution provides me with competitive pricing."
"The product cost is about $5, per user, per month."
"The licensing costs are not too high. We pay about 20 Euros a year. It's a reasonable amount to pay."
"There is a license needed to use this solution and it is approximately $30 annually."
"The solution's pricing is better compared to other products."
"The product is available at a high price."
"Our licensing fee is 1M Euro per month, so it is about 80 Euro's per user."
"Customers need to pay monthly licensing costs for Panda Security Adaptive Defense, which is not expensive."
"I don't think Panda's license is too expensive, but they're charging more than it's worth. It's a yearly license. For 1,000 endpoints, it's around $18,000."
"The price of this solution depends on the number of licenses that you are purchasing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
914,394 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business47
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise55
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business33
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business28
Midsize Enterprise8
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 Blackberry Protect?
The price is reasonable for us at the moment. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.
What needs improvement with Blackberry Protect?
I face challenges with the exclusion policy - it still scans folders we told it not to, causing issues. When we conta...
What is your primary use case for Blackberry Protect?
I am using CylancePROTECT as an active learning algorithm. We installed it on almost 20,000 servers and virtual machi...
What needs improvement with WatchGuard EPDR?
I think there's always something that needs to be improved about WatchGuard EPDR, but I don't have something specific...
What is your primary use case for WatchGuard EPDR?
I'm talking about WatchGuard EPDR, which is endpoint protection. I try to remember if we have them in our system, and...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
Blackberry Protect
Panda Adaptive Defense 360
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Panasonic, Noble Energy, Apria Healthcare Group Inc., Charles River Laboratories, Rovi Corporation, Toyota, Kiewit
Indra, Valea AB, Fineit, Aemcom, Data Solutions INC., Gloucestershire NHS, Golden Star Resources Ltd, Hispania Racing Team, Instituto Dos Museus e da ConserÊo, Escuelas Pias Provincia Emaus, Axiom Housing Association, Municipality of Bjuv, Lesedi Nuclear, Mullsj_ municipality, Eng. skolan Norr AB, Dalakraft AB, Peter Green Haulage Ltd
Find out what your peers are saying about BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity vs. WatchGuard EPDR and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
914,394 professionals have used our research since 2012.