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

Cynet vs VIPRE Endpoint Security comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024

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
114
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (6th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (4th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
Cynet
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
18th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
45
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (20th), User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (8th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (17th), Threat Deception Platforms (2nd), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (8th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (13th), Ransomware Protection (3rd)
VIPRE Endpoint Security
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
52nd
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.8%, up from 3.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cynet is 1.4%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of VIPRE Endpoint Security is 0.6%, up from 0.3% 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%
Cynet1.4%
VIPRE Endpoint Security0.6%
Other94.2%
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.
Roshan Jadhav - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Consultant at Vincacyber
Has improved threat detection and streamlined incident analysis through centralized control and AI-driven insights
People are looking for Cynet because it has next-generation threat protection that detects zero-day threats. It has UEBA (user entity behavior analysis), threat hunting features, and storage device control where we can create profiles and block unauthorized USB storage devices. We can also create threat protection policies to detect malware, ransomware, and many other threats. The most valuable feature is the UBA (User behavior analysis). It has integration with SIEM solutions, allowing us to share our logs to third-party SIEM servers. Cynet has AI integration which showcases complete forensic data about threats, making it very easy to understand what happened with the system and what type of incident was detected. Autonomous breach protection is a feature of Cynet which can detect and mitigate known and unknown threats based on signatures. If there are any signature-less files, malware, or ransomware, it will detect them based on autonomous breach protection capabilities. The centralized management console provides a dashboard where we can see four types of attack vectors and incident counts in real-time. It continuously scans the radar and shows open alerts related to files, hosts, users, or networks. We can easily export these alerts and send reports via email.
SS
IT Security Analyst at a healthcare company with 11-50 employees
Easy to upgrade and manage but needs better reporting
There just was a lot about it that I didn't like. For blocking certain items, such as USBs, we felt like it was slowing down the network too much. Therefore we utilized a GPO for blocking things like that instead. Our environment was big and I didn't feel like the console did a good enough job. We outgrew the product. I've been asking for a change for a couple of years now, and it finally got approved. In terms of the console, I had over 2000 endpoints in there and there wasn't even a search feature for me to look through them. If I had to find where a policy was I had to sort in alphabetical order to find an endpoint that I wanted. They need to offer a search function within the console - maybe something that shows a "last connected" notice. That way, it's easier to manage obsolete machines that you don't need anymore. They had a very vague setting, like after so many days, when do you want us to remove these, you'd see them. I just wish the console was a little more responsive when I would do commands. The reports could have been better. The product would show a lot of endpoints as not communicating. That was another pain point. We constantly had to run an SQL query to clean up the database as I would know immediately when I was in the console, that it just wasn't being responsive. I could tell I was being given bad data and that we had to clean up the database. As soon as I would clean up that database, it was like a purging of the SQL database and it would become a lot more responsive. The problem was that our environment was too big. We're going through a growth spurt right now. In the end, the solution is small and much better suited for a small business. We would get a lot of false positives and instead of them fixing the false positive, they would just want us to put in an exception, which I didn't care for. The product is based on an older model of signature files. It doesn't use any artificial intelligence or anything. It was slow to refresh the policies and computer scans. The larger we got, the more it became an issue. If a company stayed small, I'm not sure if they would have noticed.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Based on my experience, I would recommend Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks to other people."
"The solution allows control over the user and his machine through Cortex XDR security policies."
"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."
"If you are looking for security, mainly for advanced threat prevention from ransomware and malware attacks, I would recommend Cortex."
"Traps has drastically reduced our endpoint attack surface via advanced detection capabilities, sandboxing of never before seen programs, and by drastically limiting where executables can launch in the first place."
"Stability is one of the features we like the most."
"Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription."
"It is easy to use."
"The dashboard is beautiful, overall easy of use, and the UBA and NBA features are valued."
"I like that it is possible to use the solution to check more information about the users' devices."
"The initial setup is simple and user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the network part of it because most of the endpoint products in XDS products we find Cynet has networking user behavior analysis and network analysis, for the whole team."
"Cynet is light and transparent when downloaded. The product's data aggregation is also valuable since you can see everything you need on a page."
"One of the main benefits of Cynet is the level of visibility it gives, as well as the level of detail it provides."
"The level of automation is very good because the majority of the time, it blocks the attacks without requiring anything from our side. The technicians don't have to do anything. They are just alerted about what happened. So, the user intelligence works quite well."
"We are very satisfied with the level of performance we get."
"It has improved the way our organization functions, made things run faster in our company, and has done a fantastic job of keeping our networks free of virus."
"In general, it was pretty easy to manage."
"It has low overhead as far as machine resources are concerned. Everything runs faster with VIPRE installed versus some of the competitors. It has also been pretty easy to use. It just runs and gives us reports. It also sends us alerts when there is something that we need to look at. It does its job, and you just look at the reports. In other ways, you just forget that it is there."
"Technical support was always very helpful and responsive."
 

Cons

"It would be better if they could educate the customers more. Some sort of seminars and roadshows will help educate the customers and show what the product can do. The price could be better. It would also help if they had a team for deployment and support."
"The downside to the solution is that there are a large number of false positives."
"There are some false positives."
"The MAC agent is not as robust feature-wise as the PC version."
"It's very time-consuming to log support issues and the people that answer the tickets aren't very knowledgeable."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is not only pricey; it is extremely expensive."
"While using Cortex, I noticed some aspects that could be improved, such as increasing the synchronization speed between XDR and Xnor."
"For working with the solution, you only really need a web browser, however, we've found that working on Chrome, for example, is horrible."
"The key is the devices - which is an aspect that is lacking right now."
"The reporting is a little weak and could be improved."
"Cynet should include complete Single Sign-On (SSO) services."
"One problem is that Linux servers are not supported."
"I suppose everybody's working on AI these days. So, I would like to see more about AI-based threats."
"It is an endpoint agent, but they don't have a probe for checking the network traffic. They could improve from this point of view."
"After only one month of implementation, an overall rating is premature."
"Having a DLP feature would add value"
"We would get a lot of false positives and instead of them fixing the false positive, they would just want us to put in an exception, which I didn't care for."
"Their management interface is a little buggy as it will hang up and crash from time to time."
"Their management interface is a little buggy. It requires a few system resources on the management interface. Its reporting can also be better. Overall, the reports are pretty good. They patch some third-party software, but if they can expand what they do for reporting and patch enterprise software, it would be handy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is a little high. It is per user per year."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is an expensive solution."
"Our customers have expressed that the price is high."
"The price was fine."
"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."
"The price of the product is not very economical."
"The solution has one subscription for endpoint protection and one subscription for detection and response. The two licenses combined give you the BRO version."
"It's about $55 per license on a yearly basis."
"It costs us 20,000 to 28,000 per year."
"We purchase the product’s yearly license."
"I don't have specific information about integration capabilities or licensing costs."
"Cynet is cheap."
"The licensing for Cynet is yearly. The solution pricing depends on the customer, but it is not very expensive."
"There is an extra cost if you want the support of Cynet."
"Pricing wise, Cynet seems to be very competitive. The cost is probably lower than that offered by many of its competitors for all the functions and features it offers."
"it's not cheap, but I would rate it a three out of ten. If one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"Its price point has been phenomenal. Our previous solution from Trend Micro was triple the cost of it."
"Its price point has been phenomenal. Our previous solution from Trend Micro was triple the cost of it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
16%
University
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business46
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise53
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise12
No data available
 

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,...
When evaluating User Activity Monitoring, what aspect do you think is the most important to look for?
The support team that stands behind the detection and response. Is there adequate expertise and are they behind you ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cynet?
Cynet is not very costly. We can refer it to other customers because Cynet does not ask for additional costs for add-...
What needs improvement with Cynet?
One area where Cynet needs improvement is tamper protection for Mac and Linux agents. It currently has tamper protect...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
No data available
VIPRE Cloud, VIPRE Endpoint Security Cloud Edition, VIPRE Endpoint Security Server Edition
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Meuhedet, East Boston Neighborhood Health Center
College Station ISD, Mid-West Companies, Guardian Network Solutions
Find out what your peers are saying about Cynet vs. VIPRE Endpoint Security and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.