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

Kaspersky Next EDR Foundations vs Sangfor Endpoint Secure comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 9, 2026

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)
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
112
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (4th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (5th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
Kaspersky Next EDR Foundations
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
27th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
Ransomware Protection (9th)
Sangfor Endpoint Secure
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
32nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 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 Kaspersky Next EDR Foundations is 0.8%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sangfor Endpoint Secure is 0.8%, up from 0.7% 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 Next EDR Foundations0.8%
Sangfor Endpoint Secure0.8%
Other95.0%
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.
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
OA
Coordinator Associate at National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases
Quick threat response and behavior analysis while enhancing network security
The main use case is usually related to security. It deals with attacks that come day-to-day such as zero-day attacks and APT attacks. Our main task is to secure the network infrastructure in the hospital where I work It facilitates the departments of IT and other departments to procure and…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution's most valuable feature is the user interface."
"What I like about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is that it is a comprehensive solution that contains everything the organization may need when using endpoints."
"The most valuable for us is the correlation feature."
"If any application performs suspicious activities, such as changing registries or modifying other applications, Cortex XDR detects and blocks the entire application."
"I like that the product has behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection."
"The anti-exploit is impenetrable."
"There has been a significant reduction of approximately 70% to 80% in our internal MTTR and MTTD metrics, now around five to eight minutes whereas previously it was hours, which has helped tremendously."
"Its ability to react to cyber data attacks is awesome. That is pretty much the use of it. What blows your mind is the ability to access your assets remotely and see what is actually going on with them. You can not only see them in a console. You can also react very rapidly to your assets that are compromised."
"We had the cloud suite of KasperskyEndpoint Security Cloud, and its monitoring was fine."
"It is a powerful tool for zero-day attack prevention."
"The standout features of Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud include its cloud-based console and the simplicity of managing endpoints."
"The product works perfectly to prevent malware in our organization."
"In terms of software performance, it has been effective in providing good security."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud is a very good solution for endpoint protection."
"The platform's ability to update the database from my device and manage user profiles is quite effective."
"In Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud, anti-phishing and anti-malware are two very powerful aspects."
"We use the product for network protection from any malicious threat."
"The tool's most valuable features are control access, endpoint security, and load balancing of ISPs."
"I like the tool's honeypot feature. Some features include having a honeypot to detect attacks in a certain area. Additionally, there is RDP protection, which means that when we remote into our server or any endpoint, we must enter a password as a second layer of security. It can also integrate with next-generation firewalls."
"The user-friendliness of Sangfor Endpoint Secure is particularly impressive. Even with basic technical knowledge, users can easily navigate the system, make changes, and implement updates."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure has some good policy certificates."
"It has a quick response time, threat intelligence, cybersecurity features, quick report generation, behavior analysis, dynamic detection, and quarantine features."
"What stands out to me is the dual-end user interface they provide."
 

Cons

"The solution could improve by providing better integration with their own products and others."
"Impact on system performance is horrible, adding a lot of delays for users."
"The solution needs better reports. I think they should let the customer go in and customize the reports."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve its user interface, which is more complicated compared to competitors such as SentinelOne."
"Cortex XDR is trickier to configure than other Palo Alto products. This is one area where we are not so satisfied."
"We would also like to have advanced tech protection and email scanning."
"Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats."
"It's more focused on network communication. If a customer wants to increase the level of protection and start working with documents, it's impossible to integrate these features into the system. It's more of a communication-oriented system than a content security-oriented system."
"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."
"Kaspersky's cloud solution should be improved because the on-premises features are unavailable in the cloud."
"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."
"While the product provides a good level of protection, we need better support, especially in terms of being kept informed about new threats and specific configurations needed."
"The solution’s stability could be improved because we earlier faced an issue where the solution was not detecting file-less malware."
"Sometimes, the tool consumes a lot of resources from the endpoints, making it an area of concern where improvements are required since it currently consumes a little bit of RAM."
"Recently, there was a company which was attacked by phishing emails, and out of 10, it was only blocking three emails."
"It would be much more convenient if the migration tool could be installed directly on the customer's VMs, enabling a smoother migration process to the new infrastructure, with potential restrictions addressed accordingly."
"Currently, the tool lacks reporting functionalities."
"The interface has too many buttons, making it cluttered."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure performs poorly."
"It is complicated to establish a tunnel due to technical issues in the VPN system."
"I believe Sangfor Endpoint Secure could improve in terms of its user interface and management capabilities."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure should include healing capabilities."
"Sometimes, the VPN is not secure and doesn't work properly in Sangfor Endpoint Secure."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution has one subscription for endpoint protection and one subscription for detection and response. The two licenses combined give you the BRO version."
"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."
"I feel it is fairly priced."
"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 has reasonable pricing for the use cases it provides to the company."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is an expensive solution."
"I did PoCs on products called Cylance and CrowdStrike. Although, I consider these products and they were also good, when it come to cost and budgetary factors, Traps has been proven to be better than the other two products. It is quite cost-effective and delivers all the entire solution which we require."
"Cortex XDR’s pricing is very reasonable."
"The platform is expensive."
"The product is averagely priced."
"The pricing is favorable, and there are no additional expenses associated with using the product."
"The solution is moderately priced and cannot be considered an expensive or cheap tool."
"We had to pay an annual licensing fee for KasperskyEndpoint Security Cloud."
"I find Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud more accessible in terms of pricing."
"The product’s price is flexible."
"The solution is reasonably priced."
"The solution is cheap. It is cheaper than other products by 15-20 percent."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure's pricing is cheap. I rate it seven out of ten."
"Its "pay as you grow" model offers cost-effectiveness compared to major cloud providers."
"Price-wise, Sangfor Endpoint Secure can be considered a competitively priced product in the market as it offers quite low prices compared to other solutions."
"Sangfor Endpoint Secure is not a cheap solution."
"We were using Hyper-V. So, we switched to Sangfor because of the pricing."
"The product is expensive compared to other vendors."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.
896,034 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Media Company
7%
University
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business47
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise51
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise3
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 primary use case for KasperskyEndpoint Security Cloud?
I already have Kaspersky Endpoint Security Cloud Optimum on my company, karinoware.com. I am working on Kaspersky End...
What needs improvement with Sangfor Endpoint Secure?
The interface has too many buttons, making it cluttered. It would be better if it were a simplified version with fewe...
What is your primary use case for Sangfor Endpoint Secure?
Sangfor Endpoint Secure is easy to handle with its user-friendly interface. The four engines it utilizes for endpoint...
What advice do you have for others considering Sangfor Endpoint Secure?
At first, people might not understand the interface, which is why it should be simplified. However, once they underst...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
No data available
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Information Not Available
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Kaspersky Next EDR Foundations vs. Sangfor Endpoint Secure and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
896,034 professionals have used our research since 2012.