We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cortex XDR presents an intuitive interface, advanced identification of risks, expandability, and compatibility with various other solutions. Users praised Symantec Endpoint Security for its regular virus signature updates and comprehensive administrator's console. Cortex XDR could use enhancements in hard disk encryption, security integration, and customer education. Reviewers said Symantec Endpoint Security could improve its graphical interface, Linux support, and scanning capabilities.
Service and Support: Some customers were impressed with Palo Alto’s support, while others reported mixed experiences. Some users said Symantec customer service was helpful but slow, while others have expressed general dissatisfaction with support.
Ease of Deployment: Some users thought Cortex XDR’s deployment was fast and straightforward, while others consider it to be a complex and time-consuming task that requires thorough planning. Some users said Symantec Endpoint Security was easy to set up, while others struggled with the installation. Deployment time varies depending on the customer’s environment.
Pricing: Some reviewers said Cortex XDR is expensive, but others said it was reasonable for the robust feature set Cortex offers. The cost of Symantec Endpoint Security depends on the licensing terms and necessary security components. While some users find the price acceptable, others believe it could be more affordable.
ROI: Cortex XDR creates value by ensuring system and data security rather than a financial return on investment. Symantec Endpoint Security demonstrates strong stability and incident prevention, leading to reduced downtime. It offers a favorable return on investment.
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"Ability to get forensics details and also memory exfiltration."
"The stability is very good."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"Provides behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection."
"The anti-exploit is impenetrable. We chose Traps because it is the only product that we were not able to get anything past."
"One of the things that I enjoy the most is using policy extensions. It's like having host firewalls to control USB connections. I think it's a wonderful tool to restrict use when connecting to our computers. Another important tool is Home Insights. That is an add-on to the Cortex solution. I like that because we can see all the vulnerabilities in the environment and control what assets are connected to our network."
"If there are multiple alerts, the app will automatically create and rate an event instead of going through each one."
"Stability is one of the features we like the most."
"The live terminal is probably the best thing ever. It gives you the access to get straight onto any machine."
"I like the centralized console and the predictive analysis it does of malware. It is very stable and also scalable."
"After deploying Traps, we saw the performance of the network improve by 65 to 70 percent."
"It's good at detecting signature-based stuff and stopping that."
"The pricing is pretty good."
"Endpoint Protection is the next generation. It covers antivirus, spamware, ransomware..."
"The single-pane management is the solution's most valuable feature. It makes administrative control very easy."
"The solution detects malware very well."
"If there is exposure, we need to investigate the source of the attack, e.g., whether it came from the network or externally. We view the firewall logs, and if there has been exposure, then we use the Application Isolation feature. When there is an attack with on-prem, that system will go into isolation mode, removing connectivity to other internal systems. We also restrict the WLAN part to avoid that system broadcasting to other networks."
"It is good for detecting signature-based viruses, and it is user friendly."
"The solution can be scaled to handle different threats."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Detections could be improved."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"The solution could improve by providing better integration with their own products and others."
"I would like to see them include NDR (Network Detection Response)."
"When it comes to core analysis, and security analysis, Cortex needs to provide more information."
"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."
"Dashboards do not allow everyone to see what's happening."
"There are a large number of false positives."
"Cortex XDR could be improved with more GUI features."
"There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, is not user-friendly."
"The stability was not the best. There were times when antivirus updates broke it. It wasn't necessarily self-updating - at least, not in terms of the virus signatures. It updated in terms of the executable files. Therefore, when Windows updates would come out, they often couldn't be installed, or the computer would hang due to the fact that the updates weren't compatible with the antivirus."
"I would like to see fileless attack protection."
"Symantec End-point production doesn't support the EDR function."
"In the next release of this solution, I would like to see more to do with malware, encryption technology, and controlling mobile devices."
"There could be definition updates installed and running for the product, similar to new EDR solutions that receive updates from the internet."
"The virus definitions could be updated more frequently."
"The support can be wanting. Sometimes the time to resolution is longer than I would expect."
"The reporting function needs to be more user friendly in general."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 80 reviews while Symantec Endpoint Security is ranked 5th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 138 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Symantec Endpoint Security is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "It provides a whole new level of visibility and integrates with most other vendors". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Endpoint Security writes "The solution has given us visibility into compliance within our whole system and helped us ensure everything is updated". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Trend Micro Apex One and Microsoft Defender for Cloud, whereas Symantec Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trend Micro Deep Security and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Symantec Endpoint Security 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.