ESET Inspect vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint comparison

Why PeerSpot?

ESET and Microsoft are both solutions in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category. ESET is ranked #49, while Microsoft is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.4. ESET holds a 1.0% mindshare in EDR, compared to Microsoft’s 5.4% mindshare. Additionally, 80% of ESET users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Microsoft users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024

ESET Inspect and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offer robust endpoint security solutions. Microsoft Defender is positioned as a superior product in terms of security functionalities despite ESET Inspect's edge in user satisfaction with pricing and support.

Features: ESET Inspect is favored for its advanced threat detection, minimal system impact, and easy management. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint excels with its integration across the Microsoft ecosystem, automated remediation capabilities, and comprehensive security features.

Room for Improvement: Users suggest ESET Inspect could improve in user configurability, reporting features, and dashboard usability. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint users point out the need for better cross-platform support, reduced false positives, and improved user interface.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: ESET Inspect is appreciated for its straightforward deployment process and responsive customer service. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has a complex implementation but benefits from integration within the Microsoft ecosystem. Customer support experiences are mixed for Microsoft Defender. ESET Inspect generally wins in deployment ease.

Pricing and ROI: ESET Inspect's pricing is viewed favorably and cost-effective. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's price points are higher, but users feel the additional features justify the investment. Microsoft Defender shows better ROI due to its extensive features and integration.

To learn more, read our detailed ESET Inspect vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

ESET Inspect vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 921,028 peers since 2012

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...

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.8%, down from 3.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ESET Inspect is 1.0%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is 5.4%, down from 9.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint	5.4%
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks	3.8%
ESET Inspect	1.0%
Other	89.8%

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

Featured Reviews

ABHISHEK_SINGH

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.

Read full review

Cees Van Den Haak

ICT Manager at Bouwbedrijf de Vries en Verburg BV

A product with an easy setup phase that helps manage attacks and vulnerabilities

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that you can manage and react to vulnerabilities and attacks on all the workstations or laptops. You can put certain workstations and isolation. With ESET PROTECT, you see only one machine that is protected, but with ESET Inspect, you see all the machines that are protected in an environment.

Read full review

Robert Arbuckle

Security Analyst III at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees

Automatically isolates threats and integrates with logging to reduce response time

Overall, I would evaluate the Microsoft support level that I receive at probably about a seven, but that depends on the day. It has been spotty. We have had issues where the urgency level of the Microsoft support is not as high as ours, especially during a data breach or potential data breach situation. We have had issues with some of the offshore support being lackluster. One specific thing that comes to mind is we were on a support call with our CISO on the call, and the Microsoft agent, who did not actually work for Microsoft, is one of the vendors that Microsoft uses for support, said, "Just to set expectations, my lunch break is in an hour and I am going to go away then." For us, it was already ten o'clock at night and we had been working on this for a couple of hours, trying to get a security engineer on with us. For him to tell us that he was going to go away and have lunch, it was, "Okay, but go find somebody else if you need to." It was just the lackluster approach, and it seemed like he did not really care. We seem to get a lot of this when we get non-Microsoft support. I can identify areas for improvement with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, as it is kind of a convoluted mess to try to take care of false positives. Especially when they have been identified as false positives but they keep going off over and over again. It is great for my pocketbook because it generates a lot of on-call action, but I would really prefer more sleep at two o'clock in the morning than dealing with false positives. I would say that the unified portal for managing Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is suitable for both teams as they are all in there. It would be great if they would stop moving things around and renaming things, which makes sense. The new XDR portal is pretty nice. Being able to have it central again inside of the regular Security Center without having to open up two windows is helpful. Overall, I think it is pretty good. There is always going to be something that could be improved, such as alerting and the ability to modify alerts would be a little bit helpful to have. Being able to add more data into the alerts and turn off alerts that are not as useful would be beneficial. It is hard to say what the quantitative impact the security exposure management feature has had on our company's security, because a lot of it is kind of subjective. I think we are sitting at around a fifty percent score still, and a lot of it is just kind of unusual circumstances that we cannot really implement without breaking the organization.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"If you are looking to deploy a security solution as a whole, this is a good option."

"My advice for anybody who is considering Cortex XDR is that it is a complete solution, and has very good features."

"It is a simple platform to use."

"Palo Alto is constantly adding new features."

"Technical support is the best in class, in my opinion, because they have invested heavily in research and development."

"The most valuable features are the fact that it was running in the background and it would intercept any weird stuff, and the fact that it would send things directly to the cloud for sandboxing. It's quite practical."

"Cortex XDR alerts us on the dashboard when there's a threat, which allows us to restrict that user and helps secure our infrastructure."

"The anti-exploit is impenetrable. We chose Traps because it is the only product that we were not able to get anything past."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks pros

"ESET Enterprise Inspector's most valuable feature is EDR."

"I find the multilayered endpoint security the most valuable feature."

"Scalability-wise, it is a very good solution."

"This solution is easy to install, setup and monitor."

"ESET Enterprise Inspector's greatest asset lies in its user-friendly interface, which allows for easy navigation and thorough analysis of incidents."

"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."

"The rules are the best and most useful features."

"This solution definitely increases our security posture. When you are reviewing your existing fleet or endpoints and based on the configuration that you put out of your Defender for Endpoint, you then receive a security score from Microsoft. Depending on what rules you have configured, what policies you have deployed, and what attack surface reduction rules that you have set up and deployed, it is almost gamifying information security in the sense that you are always trying to achieve a higher score. The more hardening you perform on your endpoints, the better score you receive. This generally tends to give you a better peace of mind, but also makes you secure at the same time."

"It's an enterprise solution that provides a centralized console and it supports all the platforms that we use, including Windows, Linux, Mac, iOS, and Android."

"The endpoint detection of threats is valuable. The initial detection of things like ransomware and viruses and being able to shut down machines immediately and stop a threat is valuable. We can stop a threat at a source versus allow it to propagate it across the network."

"In my opinion, the most valuable aspects are the reporting analytics and integration with Sentinel. Defender does an excellent job of correlating the different entities that comprise threat analysis, analytics data, and log analytics. It helps to piece together investigations into any exploit or malicious activity within a specific tenant. AI and analytics tools are probably the most valuable components."

"Overall, I recommend Microsoft Defender for Endpoint due to its features and capabilities, which cover more loopholes than other EDR solutions."

"Integration between Microsoft products is very easy."

"It's pretty easy to use, works with compliance issues, and is reliable."

"It is very simple to use and easy to scan systems."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint pros

Cons

"The solution should offer more dashboards and they should be better customized."

"It takes time to scan the servers and devices."

"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve by offering remote management. It would be useful to look at the client's issue to fix it."

"Additionally, I think the price is very high, and if it can be adjusted, I believe it will be a very good solution."

"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."

"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."

"They've been having some issues with updating their endpoint agents, and it has been quite frustrating."

"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."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks cons

"One area that needs improvement for the product is ransomware protection, which does not offer complete security."

"It may be difficult for a first-time customer to understand all of the functions that are available to him."

"The platform's price could be better."

"It is not a stable product. We were disappointed in the stability of this product in comparison to McAffee."

"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 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."

"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."

"They should bring back the feature of a dedicated proxy device for communication to the cloud. As of now, all the agents are required to send the logs directly to the cloud. There should be a solution where you can put a proxy and all the logs are consolidated, like a forwarder."

"The user interface could use some improvement."

"The central console needs improvement. Both McAfee and Symantec antivirus have dashboards. These integrate with a server and work on my antivirus or some other product. However, with Microsoft Defender, you use Microsoft Group Policy Object. Defender does not provide a central console. Therefore, if you implement Defender, then maybe use another tool for the central view."

"The actual product updates have caused a little bit of disruption that could be avoided, so I think that customers need to have more granular controls as to when updates can be deployed versus more done from a top-down deployment perspective."

"I think Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a solution which needs a little bit more resources on the CPU side, as we detected that on some virtual machines in Azure, with the activation of Defender, the CPU utilization increases about ten percent."

"Its user interface (UI) can be improved. Currently, in the console, you have to dig down for certain things. They've got many different layers to get to things instead of having it all on the surface. You have to go three folds lower to get to specific functionality or click a particular option. It would be good if we can manage the console through menus and instead of three clicks, we can do things in one click. They need to change the UI and work on it in terms of a better user experience."

"Sometimes it is a little lacking, but for the most part, they are able to provide exactly what I need."

"Reporting could be improved. I would like to see how many security incidents occurred in the last six months, how many devices were highly exposed to security risks, and how many devices were actually compromised."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It has a higher cost than other solutions, like CrowdStrike or Microsoft’s EDR tools, but it reduces the cost of our operations because it’s a new generation antivirus tool."

"The price of the solution could be reduced. I have customers that have voiced that the solution is good for the value but if I want to sell more of the solution the price reduction would help."

"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."

"It's way too expensive, but security is expensive. You pay for your licensing, and then you pay for someone to monitor the stuff."

"Our license will require renewal in August, after which the maintenance will continue as usual."

"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is an expensive solution."

"The pricing seems fair, and I do like the licensing model. You use wherever they are, and it is elastic."

"We pay about $50,000 USD per year for a bundle that includes Cortex XDR."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks pricing and cost advice

"The platform is expensive; it could be cheaper."

"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 platform's licensing is affordable and straightforward."

"I feel it is a very expensive product."

"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 solution is free and comes with Windows."

"Microsoft Defender ATP is expensive."

"Pricing for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is competitive. Out of the bundle, you will get a lot of security, if I talk about Microsoft E5, for example, and get a lot of benefits. If the customer goes and purchases a different solution, it will cost more, so pricing for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is quite reasonable at the moment. There isn't any challenge in terms of pricing, for example, I didn't see a customer who pulled back because of the price. Some prices could be negotiable, and sometimes, as a sales point, the two become negotiable, but they don't bill one and pull back because of the pricing. If you have an E5 license, you get everything."

"The solution comes as part of Microsoft Windows."

"The nice thing about Defender and Sentinel is that the cost is based on the data logs that you ingest from the Defender endpoints and data connectors. I don't have to buy a 25- or 50- or 1,000-user or enterprise license. I can buy one license at a time."

"The price is fair for the features Microsoft delivers. If you want tailor-made features, you have to mix different licenses. It isn't straightforward."

"You don't need to worry about the renewal and purchase of antivirus products. It is bundled with Windows 10, so you don't need to worry about separately purchasing any antiviruses."

"I pay for it through the Windows Professional or Standard license. It is a one-time cost for me, and I use the same license."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

921,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Comms Service Provider

14%

Outsourcing Company

12%

Construction Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

14%

Outsourcing Company

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Outsourcing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	50
Midsize Enterprise	21
Large Enterprise	57

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Large Enterprise	2

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	82
Midsize Enterprise	44
Large Enterprise	97

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. ...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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,...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Which offers better endpoint security - Symantec or Microsoft Defender?

We use Symantec because we do not use MS Enterprise products, but in my opinion, Microsoft Defender is a superior sol...

See all answers

How does Microsoft Defender for Endpoint compare with Crowdstrike Falcon?

The CrowdStrike solution delivers a lot of information about incidents. It has a very light sensor that will never pu...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint?

We have been discussing pricing, setup cost, and licensing, and we are currently on an E3. We are discussing going to...

See all answers

Comparisons

SentinelOne Singularity Endpoint vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 5% of the time

CrowdStrike Falcon vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 4% of the time

Symantec Endpoint Security vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 3% of the time

Cortex XSIAM vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 3% of the time

Trellix Endpoint Security Platform vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 3% of the time

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Competitors

CrowdStrike Falcon vs ESET Inspect

Compared 15% of the time

SentinelOne Singularity Endpoint vs ESET Inspect

Compared 5% of the time

HP Wolf Security vs ESET Inspect

Compared 4% of the time

TrendAI Vision One vs ESET Inspect

Compared 4% of the time

More ESET Inspect Competitors

OpenText Core Endpoint Protection vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 7% of the time

CrowdStrike Falcon vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 3% of the time

Symantec Endpoint Security vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 3% of the time

SentinelOne Singularity Endpoint vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 3% of the time

HP Wolf Security vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 2% of the time

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

November 2026

Download Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks product report

Buyer's Guide

ESET Inspect

November 2026

Download ESET Inspect product report

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

October 2026

Download Microsoft Defender for Endpoint product report

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps

ESET Enterprise Inspector

Microsoft Defender ATP, Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection, MS Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Defender Antivirus

Interactive Demo

Demo not available

Palo Alto Networks

Demo not available

ESET

Microsoft

Overview

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks provides advanced threat detection with AI-driven endpoint protection and seamless integration, ensuring multi-layered security and automatic threat response.

Cortex XDR is designed to safeguard endpoints against malware and suspicious activities. It offers advanced threat detection and response capabilities using behavioral analysis, AI, and machine learning. It seamlessly integrates with security infrastructures, providing endpoint security, firewall integration, and enhanced visibility in both cloud-based and on-premises environments.

What are the key features of Cortex XDR?

Advanced Threat Detection: Uses AI and machine learning for proactive threat identification.
Multi-layered Security: Combines various security measures for comprehensive protection.
Endpoint Protection: Safeguards against malware and exploits.
Behavioral Analysis: Monitors suspicious activity for early detection.
Automatic Threat Response: Automates responses to neutralize threats.

What benefits should users expect?

Ease of Use: Simplifies security management with intuitive design.
Resource Efficiency: Minimizes impact on system resources.
Integration Capabilities: Works well with existing security setups.
Reduced Analyst Workload: Automates processes to decrease manual intervention.

Organizations in diverse sectors deploy Cortex XDR to protect against malware, leveraging its advanced threat detection capabilities. Its integration with existing security infrastructures appeals to those seeking comprehensive protection in both cloud and on-premises environments, providing enhanced visibility and threat intelligence.

Palo Alto Networks

ESET Inspect provides strong EDR capabilities with user-friendly operations and multilayered security for threat detection and response, supporting efficient management across multiple devices.

ESET Inspect enables organizations to manage security effectively through its lightweight connector, handling EDR/XDR services for vulnerability and attack management. It allows tracking of potential threats, including lateral movements and anomaly detection, and employs XML-based rules for customized filtering. The interface supports exception management and a learning mode, enhancing control over false positives. Performance, stability, and flexible deployment options add value to its comprehensive security approach.

What are the key features of ESET Inspect?

User-Friendly Interface: Simplifies navigation and threat monitoring.
Effective EDR Capabilities: Enables detailed response actions for security incidents.
Multilayered Security: Prevents malicious activities with layered protection.
XML-Based Rules: Allows customizable filtering and monitoring.
Learning Mode: Facilitates the management of false positives through exceptions.
Lightweight Connector: Efficiently manages security across devices.

What benefits can users expect from ESET Inspect?

Enhanced Threat Detection: Provides deep insights into network processes.
Comprehensive Management: Offers multilayered security across cloud and on-premises setups.
Proactive Threat Response: Enables actions like process termination for anomalies.
Flexible Deployment: Supports antivirus, spam protection, and IDS functions.

ESET Inspect is often deployed by administrators in industries requiring stringent security management, such as IT services and business sectors with sensitive data handling. It is used for network monitoring, antivirus protections across desktops, laptops, and servers, allowing proactive responses to threats with built-in and regularly updated rules.

ESET

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint provides comprehensive threat protection that integrates well with current systems, offering proactive threat detection and automatic updates while reducing manual efforts.

The platform is designed for seamless integration with Microsoft products, facilitating efficient management and use. It offers proactive ransomware protection and valuable threat intelligence, crucial for timely response and increased visibility across devices. Users highlight its ability to secure endpoints from viruses and malware, integrating with Windows and Office 365 to enhance real-time detection capabilities in diverse environments, including hybrid and on-premises setups. However, enhancements are needed in Linux integration, detection accuracy, and policy implementations.

What are the key features of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint?

Seamless Integration: Works smoothly with existing systems and Microsoft products for easy management.
Proactive Threat Detection: Advanced monitoring to identify and mitigate threats swiftly.
Ransomware Protection: Built-in features to protect against ransomware attacks automatically.
Centralized Management: Unified platform for better device visibility and collaboration.
Threat Intelligence: Provides critical data for rapid threat response.

What benefits should be evaluated in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint?

Cost-Effectiveness: Part of Windows bundles, offering comprehensive security at competitive pricing.
Time Efficiency: Reduces manual oversight with automatic updates and management ease.
Real-Time Detection: Enhanced security through seamless Office 365 and Windows integration.
Device Coverage: Supports hybrid and on-premises environments for varied digital infrastructures.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is implemented across industries for securing endpoints, relying on its deep integration with Windows and Office 365 to protect against malware and viruses. Organizations benefit from its real-time detection and comprehensive management capabilities, particularly in hybrid environments where diverse digital infrastructures need safeguarding.

Microsoft

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank

Mitsubishi Motors, Allianz Suisse, Cannon, T-Mobile

Petrofrac, Metro CSG, Christus Health

Buyer's Guide

ESET Inspect vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

September 2026

Free Report: ESET Inspect vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Find out what your peers are saying about ESET Inspect vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

921,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our ESET Inspect vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.

See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.

We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.