We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, users favor Cortex XDR, mainly because its pricing is more reasonable than that of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business.
"It's quite simple, and the advantage I see is that I get the trajectory of what happened inside the network, how a file has been transmitted to the workstation, and which files have got corrupted."
"It is extensive in terms of providing visibility and insights into threats. It allows for research into a threat, and you can chart your progress on how you're resolving it."
"I'm only using the AMP (advanced malware protection) which is protecting my file system from all the malicious things that might happen. It should protect all kinds of things that might happen on the servers, things that I cannot see."
"The most valuable feature is its threat protection and data privacy, including its cyber attack and data protection, as we need to cover and protect data on user devices."
"appreciate the File Trajectory feature, as it's excellent for an analyst or mobile analyst. I can track everything that happens on our server from my PC or device. Integration with SecureX is a welcome feature because it connects Cisco's integrated security portfolio with our complete infrastructure. Sandboxing is helpful, and integration with the Cisco environment is excellent as we use many of their products, and that's very valuable for us."
"The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that there is a lot more malware slipping through my email filters than I expected."
"The integration with other Cisco products seemed to be really effective. We had Umbrella in place and we were using AnyConnect as well as Firepower. Once a threat was detected, being able to do the threat lookups and the live tracking was really useful."
"Device Trajectory is one of the most valuable features. We're able to dig in and really understand how things came to be and where to focus our efforts."
"The integrations are out-of-the-box, as are the playbooks."
"Threat identification and detection are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It'll not slow down your system when compared to others."
"Cortex XDR's most valuable feature is its intelligence-based dashboards."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is easy to use and does not consume a lot of hardware resources."
"From a single pane of glass, you can easily manage all of your endpoints."
"One thing that I like about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, it is detecting all the suspicious or malicious binaries, and it has integration with Palo Alto Firewall."
"Stability is one of the features we like the most."
"I have found the most useful features to be protected against viruses, mail threats, encryption of the devices, and MDM. There are a lot of features."
"The performance is good. It doesn't use a lot of resources, which is crucial for us."
"The reporting feature is good. Also, the device control is good."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security protects against viruses and dangerous software, and it's also great because it has a component that is useful for the deployment of software versions to the end user's computer."
"There is plenty of features that make the solution work very well."
"One of the most valuable features is that it's quite secure. I'm satisfied with this solution."
"Some of the most valuable features are the security and the stability, which are great. There are some imperfections, but everything is fine. In general, I think it's one of the best solutions."
"The stability has been good."
"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."
"In terms of the user experience, if the UX design could be much simpler [that would improve things]... if they could make it more intuitive for someone who is not an engineer so that they still can read what's going on in their webpage and understand, that would be something."
"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."
"It could be improved in connection with artificial intelligence and IoT."
"Its price is okay for us, but it can always be better. There's always room for improvement when it comes to pricing."
"An easier way to do deduplication of machines, or be alerted to the fact that there's more than one instance of a machine, would be useful... That way you could get a more accurate device count, so you're not having an inflated number."
"The Linux agent is a simple offline classic agent, and it doesn't support Secure Boot, which is important to have on a Linux machine. The Linux agent has conflicts with other solutions, including the Exploit Prevention system found in Windows servers. We didn't find a fix during troubleshooting, and Cisco couldn't offer one either. Eventually, we had to shut down the Exploit Prevention system. We didn't like that as we always want a solution that can fit smoothly into the setup without causing problems, especially where security is concerned. The tool also caused CPU spikes on our production machine, and we were seriously considering moving to another product."
"This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports."
"I don't like that they have different types of licenses. For example, if users select a license, they think they will have all the platforms they need to improve their network or security. But after some time, Palo Alto Networks changed their licensing, and some of the features that, for example, were free at the beginning now have a cost. I think the integration can be improved. For example, a lot of tools are just integrated through APIs."
"It should support more mobile operating systems. That is one of the cons of their infrastructure right now."
"The setup is quite easy. We had appropriate support from the manager. One thing that was missing was the integration part."
"When it comes to core analysis, and security analysis, Cortex needs to provide more information."
"Impact on system performance is horrible, adding a lot of delays for users."
"We would also like to have advanced tech protection and email scanning."
"The GUI could be improved."
"The solution could improve by providing better integration with their own products and others."
"It's grown more expensive and customers are not happy about it."
"As far as improvements, maybe the licensing could be cheaper, but I think this solution is pretty okay."
"When we connect to the solutions' website they block out our VPN connection. This causes us some difficulties."
"When I do a malware scan on my computer it takes a long while. This process could improve in the future. Additionally, the security could improve."
"The licensing fees could be reduced."
"The solution could use better reporting."
"The performance level could be better."
"It would be nice if it was less expensive."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 42 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 16th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 54 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.2, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "Easy to set up, reliable, and always scanning". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "It's reliable and secure, but the monitoring and notifications could be more detailed ". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Darktrace and Cisco SecureX, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Sophos Intercept X, Fortinet FortiClient and Symantec Endpoint Security. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business report.
See our list of best EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) vendors.
We monitor all EPP (Endpoint Protection 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.