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

MetaDefender vs Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

MetaDefender
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
38th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (37th), Anti-Malware Tools (37th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (19th)
Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
17th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) category, the mindshare of MetaDefender is 1.5%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is 1.2%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus1.2%
MetaDefender1.5%
Other97.3%
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
 

Featured Reviews

Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.
Reviewer921606 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Cloud Security Architect at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Seamless integration into existing ecosystem empowers effective threat detection
The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is its seamless integration into the Palo Alto Networks ecosystem, allowing the threat intelligence feeds to be automatically consumed without manual effort. It uses the STIX format, which is automatically understood by the firewalls. AutoFocus also excels in behavioral analytics and reputation scoring, providing thorough threat analysis.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
"The logs play a crucial role as they contribute to blocking unwanted Internet traffic."
"The most valuable feature is alerting."
"The feature that I like best is the dashboard."
"Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus has had a positive impact on my company as we can reduce the cost for the SOC investment, and we can also get good feedback on how to strengthen our network from the expertise people available."
"I am impressed with the tool's integration of Palo Alto products which serves as a platform for security."
"I would rate Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus a ten out of ten."
"It integrates well with other solutions and provides good threat intelligence in terms of external threats."
 

Cons

"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
"It would be better if they used the threat intelligence feeds directly from their side and changing the verdict instead of us requesting it."
"It is a completely cloud-based product at present."
"I would like to have more technical documentation that contains greater detail on the types of threats that are occurring."
"It would be helpful to have better documentation for configuring and installing the solution."
"I would like the tool to see more integration with Cortex XDR. There is no real reason to keep them separate."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
"The solution is reasonably priced."
"It is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
Performing Arts
15%
Computer Software Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise4
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus?
I feel that Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus can improve, especially since most of the OEMs are implementing MDR, Managed Service feature, which is still not available with Palo Alto. The MDR feature i...
What is your primary use case for Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus?
I use Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus for threat monitoring, and it is provided by the OEM itself. I use the threat data correlation feature, which correlates with Cortex. We can use it for data corre...
What advice do you have for others considering Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus?
As a partner with Palo Alto Networks, my email is Sarvajit at bsrgroup.in. My job title is Technical Manager. I confirm that we will publish these reviews on peerspot.com in written or audio format...
 

Also Known As

OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
Palo Alto Threat Intelligence Management
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Telkom Indonesia
Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, Recorded Future, VirusTotal and others in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP). Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.