Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

ESET Inspect vs Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud 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 Detection and Response (EDR)
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
108
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (5th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (6th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (2nd)
ESET Inspect
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
30th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Kaspersky Endpoint Security...
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
24th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
Ransomware Protection (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.4%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ESET Inspect is 1.3%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud is 0.7%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks3.4%
Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud0.7%
ESET Inspect1.3%
Other94.6%
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
 

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.
Moshiur-Rahman Khan - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at IOPoint.com
Provides reliable and comprehensive internet security solutions without significant system slowdowns
My organization uses ESET Inspect for antivirus and internet security on laptops and desktops. On the enterprise side, we utilize it on our Windows Server.  The platform has improved our organization's security by providing comprehensive antivirus and internet security solutions. It is fast and…
Zunair Aftab - PeerSpot reviewer
Supports Engineer at Rawad IT Solutions
Security features excel while management tools face challenges
Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud has proven to be a robust and comprehensive solution for endpoint protection. So far, no major negative features have been observed. However, email security integration with Microsoft 365 has room for improvement. In a recent real-world incident, a company received 10 phishing emails, of which only three were blocked by the system. Enhancing detection accuracy to block 7 or more would significantly improve trust and effectiveness. With the on-premises version, there's a known issue where assigning a device to a new group results in it being auto-assigned back to the previous group. Fixing this bug would greatly streamline device management. Additionally, in the cloud version, once a device is assigned to a user, it cannot be reassigned without deleting the user or the device entirely. It would be far more user-friendly if the platform allowed simple reassignment or de-assignment, returning the device to an "unassigned" state. As for automated behavioral analysis, while current functionality is based on machine learning, upgrading to true AI-powered detection could bring substantial improvements. Ideally, the system should proactively flag potential threats, and offer administrators the option to either allow or block applications based on intelligent risk analysis

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"It's a nice product that's stable and scalable."
"The initial setup isn't too bad."
"If the user leaves our premises or network, Palo Alto Traps will still be on that endpoint and will still apply our policies."
"The multi-layered approach to the product gives you confidence that it will stop exploits, ransomware, worms, or viruses from compromising endpoints, essentially providing peace of mind."
"Automation and playbooks have helped me significantly, as Cortex Xnor's playbooks predefine the workflow of the automation, such as response processes, alert triggering, and enriching the context, efficiently detecting and blocking malicious attacks with firewalls while eliminating workload and speeding responses for next-generation operations."
"The solution's most valuable feature is the user interface."
"The most valuable feature of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is the low consumption of system resources. The solution uses a lot of AI and machine learning."
"I find the multilayered endpoint security the most valuable feature."
"ESET Enterprise Inspector's greatest asset lies in its user-friendly interface, which allows for easy navigation and thorough analysis of incidents."
"The rules are the best and most useful features."
"The product's most valuable features are its performance and stability."
"Rules are the most valuable feature of ESET Inspect. They are created through XML language, and they track and filter events from endpoints. If the event matches the rule, the rule is triggered. Exceptions are the second most valuable feature because it gives you the power to filter false positives in large numbers. The third most valuable feature is the Learning mode that facilitates making exceptions for known processes with a good reputation."
"Scalability-wise, it is a very good solution."
"ESET Enterprise Inspector's most valuable feature is EDR."
"In Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud, anti-phishing and anti-malware are two very powerful aspects."
"The most valuable component of the solution is the malware detection feature."
"All features in Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud are perfect, and I am interested in working with Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud."
"We had the cloud suite of KasperskyEndpoint Security Cloud, and its monitoring was fine."
"The platform's ability to update the database from my device and manage user profiles is quite effective."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud is a very good solution for endpoint protection."
"The product works perfectly to prevent malware in our organization."
"Kaspersky has a Cloud Discovery feature. There is no template in Kaspersky. They provide a temporary risk assessment of the cloud services. For example, if we want to block public storage services like OneDrive or Google Drive, we need to specify each individually. The main difference is that Kaspersky's process takes more time because it requires individual input."
 

Cons

"If they had pulse rate detection, it would be better."
"Initially, we got to have a lot of false positives when we onboarded, but nowadays it's quite smooth."
"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."
"If he is using a smaller company, he can depend on some other tools because Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is a bit expensive."
"The connection to the internet has not performed as expected."
"I think sometimes Cortex XDR agent automatically stops event capturing from the device, and then even the dashboard does not get any notifications from the agent."
"It takes time to scan the servers and devices."
"Dashboards do not allow everyone to see what's happening."
"It is not a stable product. We were disappointed in the stability of this product in comparison to McAffee."
"One area that needs improvement for the product is ransomware protection, which does not offer complete security."
"The product is complex to configure, and there are too many errors that are not errors, making it an area that can be considered for improvement."
"The solution could improve the consumption of resources. The RAM and CPU usage increases during usage which can cause issues. We have three separate services and it would be beneficial if all were executed from one agent limiting the over usage of system resources."
"The platform's price could be better."
"Every vendor is working on making the job of SOC analysts easier, with fewer false positives and more precise detections. ESET uses LiveGrid technology that provides feedback on the reputation of files and operations. It's hard to eliminate all of the false positives, but hopefully, we'll see some improvement with the advances in AI."
"It may be difficult for a first-time customer to understand all of the functions that are available to him."
"Kaspersky doesn't provide local support."
"The tool's update management can be better. In future releases, the addition of a DLP module would be valuable."
"One area where the product could be improved is in its delivery and installation process."
"Recently, there was a company which was attacked by phishing emails, and out of 10, it was only blocking three emails."
"Kaspersky's global ranking has been on the decline."
"Certain shortcomings in the anti-ransomware part of the solution need improvement. XDR and MDR, along with threat hunting, a big step in cybersecurity today, need improvement."
"The solution’s stability could be improved because we earlier faced an issue where the solution was not detecting file-less malware."
"It requires specific expertise or certified professionals to deploy the product. There is a need to expand the offerings to various industries covering different-sized businesses."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription. This is attributed to OPEX savings, as security teams spent less time trying to identify and isolate malware for analysis as a result of a reduction in malware incidents, false positives, and breach avoidance."
"Its pricing is kind of in line with its competitors and everybody else out there."
"I don't have any issues with the pricing. We are satisfied with the price."
"The pricing is okay, although direct support can be expensive."
"If one wishes to work with another team or large number of users at a future point, he must purchase a license for them."
"The price was fine."
"The return on investment is from the user side because we have seen the performance of it increase the delivery time of the product if we are using too many web-based and on-premise applications. In indirect ways, we saw the return of investment in terms of performance and user satisfaction increase."
"It is "expensive" and flexible."
"This is true in the case of licensing, we do not have the most expensive products, and we don't have the cheapest product, it's somewhere in the middle. Perhaps a little higher from the middle, but we are known for what we provide to our customers, and they are pleased."
"The pricing and licensing are the big issue now, in my opinion. If the price was less than other companies, or a one-time charge for service was available, I think there would be more users of this solution."
"The platform's licensing is affordable and straightforward."
"I feel it is a very expensive product."
"The platform is expensive; it could be cheaper."
"The solution is moderately priced and cannot be considered an expensive or cheap tool."
"The product is averagely priced."
"The solution is reasonably priced."
"We had to pay an annual licensing fee for KasperskyEndpoint Security Cloud."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud is a cost-effective solution."
"I find Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud more accessible in terms of pricing."
"The product’s price is flexible."
"The platform is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.
884,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business44
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise47
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise3
 

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 ESET Inspect?
The platform's licensing is affordable and straightforward. We purchase soft keys, install them, and manage the licen...
What needs improvement with ESET Inspect?
One area that needs improvement for the product is ransomware protection, which does not offer complete security.
What is your primary use case for ESET Inspect?
My organization uses ESET Inspect for antivirus and internet security on laptops and desktops. On the enterprise side...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
ESET Enterprise Inspector
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Mitsubishi Motors, Allianz Suisse, Cannon, T-Mobile
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about ESET Inspect vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.