Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR comparison

Microsoft and Qualys are both solutions in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category. Microsoft is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.4, while Qualys is ranked #72. Microsoft holds a 6.9% mindshare in EDR, compared to Qualys’s 0.3% mindshare. Additionally, 95% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Qualys users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Qualys Multi-Vector EDR based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Microsoft and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR).

To learn more, read our detailed Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,933 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 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 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is 6.9%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys Multi-Vector EDR is 0.3%, up from 0.2% 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	6.9%
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks	3.4%
Qualys Multi-Vector EDR	0.3%
Other	89.4%

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

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

reviewer1668453

Director, Security Innovation at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees

Provides contextual alerts and risk ratings on findings

It's kind of difficult to quantify areas for improvement. In the larger picture, one challenge is that the NDR space is very crowded today. I can mention half a dozen names just off the top of my head. There are at least 12 to 20 different players. All of them are well-known brand names, and it's difficult to compare them. They all claim to be giving you the same network difference capability: catching malware, dealing with all the minor taxonomy of attack, all that. Still, it's very difficult to compare them side by side because they all do things a little differently, and they all have different presentations and output. We haven't deployed it, so I can't give you what we felt about it exactly. But in the larger perspective, the critical feature is really giving a clear separation between a low, high, and medium criticality. You need a rating that is really true to the actual attack. There's one other capability we are evaluating them for, and it's for custom alerts detection. A lot of these products are trying to profile the threats that are already out there in the industry. They're very well known and published. Today, there are targeted acts being played against organizations, so you have to be sensitive to how your firewalls, protocols, and your HTTP are all operating. You might have some fine-tuned threats that are targeting you, and you should be able to build custom defenses. They should have some openness in terms of how you specify your threats. You get a standard library of threats. On top of it, every organization builds its own.

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

"Cortex XDR is stable, offering high quality and reliable performance."

"My advice for others looking into using Cortex is that it is very easy to use and very useful for the customer environment, whether it's a public or private one."

"Being a cloud solution it is very flexible in serving internal and external connections and a broad range of devices."

"I've found the solution to be highly scalable for enterprises."

"It is easy to use."

"The positive impacts I see from Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks include a complete 360-degree view of our security posture altogether, being a uniform platform where we are ingesting logs from multiple resources."

"From a single pane of glass, you can easily manage all of your endpoints."

"The user interface of the solution is sophisticated and straightforward."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks pros

"The technical support from Microsoft is very good. We are part of the Microsoft Suite, and from being part of this we have consistent news regarding Microsoft Defender for Endpoint."

"The feature I appreciate most about Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is the portal, being able to see everything rolling up into the portal for a total overview of how the organization looks for all the managed endpoints."

"It automatically detects intrusion and malware."

"The performance of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has been a valuable feature."

"It's a Microsoft product; it's easier to deploy this product than other options."

"The comprehensiveness of Microsoft threat-protection products is great... Today, Microsoft Sentinel by itself is a leading Gartner SIEM tool. It has advantages over competitors because of the ability to integrate with Microsoft solutions and automate continuous monitoring of Microsoft AD and Office 365 data."

"The primary advantage is that you don't need to install it. It's included in the Windows 10 delivery."

"The feature I like the most about Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is that it's built into Microsoft; the ASR rules have really secured our endpoints."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint pros

"They can provide you very contextual alerts on if something bad is happening—coming into your network or going out of your network. As part of that, they gather a lot of threat intelligence and map your connections against that. The larger benefit is that they give you a risk rating on their findings."

Cons

"I would like to see them include NDR (Network Detection Response)."

"Whenever the tool releases a new version when deploying the product across the organization, I feel like there are some disturbances in the CPU usage after upgrading the tool to the latest version."

"However, if you do not have Palo Alto in your environment, you are paying these additional services just for Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, so it is not a cost-effective solution."

"The downsides of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks are that in many incidents, when I enter the causality chain, there are numerous logs."

"There is a severe gap in functionality between Windows, Linux, and Mac versions."

"In terms of areas of improvement, we have not completed our review of the product. We're also looking at other products. So, it's a little bit hard to tell what could be different because we have not completed the review of this product, but based on our experience so far, its implementation is quite complex."

"A little bit more automation would be nice."

"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks can improve mobile integration to allow access to the console."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks cons

"I think Microsoft needs to improve some of the security aspects of Defender. The email part, in particular, needs to be improved in terms of security effectiveness."

"There's scanning going on that occasionally topples the memory, causing everything to freeze. This should be fixed."

"Updates are not coming out of preview quickly enough and it is holding back on the development of the product."

"Its interface can be improved a little bit. We would like to have some sort of centralization. It should have something like a central server that is managing all the other clients. There are solutions from Kaspersky or ESET NOD32 that are really doing this kind of thing currently. We would like to see something similar from Microsoft."

"They can improve it on the online protection front since people nowadays are moving online and working from home."

"The initial support process can be lacking as first-line support is sometimes not well-versed technically, resulting in repeated exchanges to finally engage a knowledgeable support person."

"In active mode, it's great that it gives you so much information, but it does record every keystroke so you have a lot of logs... that amount of data logging started to add up in the cost."

"Defender for Endpoint is complex, and the documentation is detailed. At the same time, it's hard to navigate sometimes."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint cons

"My challenge is actually comparing offerings from different vendors across a threat spectrum that is very large. We are talking about millions of threats. How are you confident that Blue Hexagon is catching all one million of them and Palo Alto is doing the same thing? They all have their strengths. Within that, Blue Hexagon might cover 990,000 of them. Palo Alto might cover another 990,000. It's a bit difficult to compare them and say, "Oh, are they catching the same 990,000?" I don't know."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"Cortex XDR's pricing is ok."

"I don't recall what the cost was, but it wasn't really that expensive."

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

"Its pricing is kind of in line with its competitors and everybody else out there."

"It has a yearly renewal."

"It's the most expensive solution, but features-wise, it's quite strong. It's very good for protection, so the results are very good in the case of protection. I would rate it a two out of ten in terms of pricing."

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

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks pricing and cost advice

"We mostly use Microsoft products. We use Office 365, and we use Azure. We're also a Microsoft partner. So, the licensing was much cheaper for us, and at the same time, a lot of the features that we were looking for were included in Defender."

"Licenses depend upon what you are looking for and what kind of security do you want to implement. There are costs in addition to the standard licensing fees. When we used to buy Symantec, we used to spend on 100 licenses. We used to spend approximately $2,700 for those many licenses, and they came in packs. To add one more license, I had to buy a pack with a minimum of 10 licenses. I had to spend on nine extra licenses because I can't get a single license, whereas when we go for Microsoft, we can get as many licenses as we want. If I have 100 users today, and tomorrow, I have 90 users, I can release my 10 licenses next month. With any other software vendor, you buy licenses for one year, and you have to stick with that. If today you have 100 licenses, and tomorrow, you have 50, you have already paid for one year's license. You can't go back and tell them that I don't require these 50 licenses because I have lost my 50 users, but with Microsoft Defender, licensing is on a monthly basis. It gives you both options. You can go yearly and save on it, or you can go monthly. You will, again, save on it. It is very fair everywhere."

"Buying individual point products would've cost us a lot more money than one integrated solution that also capitalizes on Teams Voice and things of that nature. Given our size, buying individual products would have easily cost us a million dollars."

"Licensing models of Microsoft are renowned for being complex. We just purchased the whole E5 stack. With E5 licenses for users, we get access to a bunch of features that are not just related to security. I would rate them a three out of five in terms of pricing."

"I'm not too familiar with costs as I'm an architect, though I know about online pricing, as I help two teams with online purchasing and procurement. Nowadays, everyone has an enterprise agreement, such as an E3 license, which we provide to our customers."

"There is no licensing fee."

"For me, the pricing is very good, but for management it's very expensive. Other solutions are less expensive. But when I present all the information and all the reports they say, "Well, it's expensive, but the cost-benefit is very good.""

"It is so expensive. It isn't cheaper than McAfee or other solutions."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint pricing and cost advice

"It's difficult to state the setup cost. All the NDRs range anywhere between $500,000, plus or minus, to $2 million. There's a spread of pricing here, depending on who you are talking to. Obviously the major brand names want more money. They typically bundle it with their other offerings. With Cisco, for example, you don't just buy an NDR. So, typically it gets rolled into the cost."

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

884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

Government

Financial Services Firm

12%

Comms Service Provider

Retailer

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	44
Midsize Enterprise	20
Large Enterprise	47

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	81
Midsize Enterprise	40
Large Enterprise	95

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. ...

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

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?

I'm not too familiar with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint; it wasn't some...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SentinelOne Singularity Complete vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 6% of the time

CrowdStrike Falcon vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 4% of the time

Cortex XSIAM 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

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 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 4% of the time

HP Wolf Security vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 4% of the time

Symantec Endpoint Security vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 4% of the time

F-Secure Total vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 3% of the time

OpenText Core Endpoint Protection vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 3% of the time

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Competitors

CrowdStrike Falcon vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 29% of the time

ExtraHop Reveal(x) vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 13% of the time

Darktrace vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 8% of the time

Huntress Managed EDR vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 8% of the time

Lookout vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 7% of the time

More Qualys Multi-Vector EDR Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

March 2026

Download Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks product report

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

March 2026

Download Microsoft Defender for Endpoint product report

Buyer's Guide

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

March 2026

Download Qualys Multi-Vector EDR product report

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps

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

Blue Hexagon

Interactive Demo

Demo not available

Palo Alto Networks

Microsoft

Demo not available

Qualys

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

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a comprehensive security solution that provides advanced threat protection for organizations. It offers real-time protection against various types of cyber threats, including malware, viruses, ransomware, and phishing attacks.

With its powerful machine-learning capabilities, it can detect and block sophisticated attacks before they can cause any harm. The solution also includes endpoint detection and response (EDR) capabilities, allowing organizations to quickly investigate and respond to security incidents. It provides detailed insights into the attack timeline, enabling security teams to understand the scope and impact of an incident.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint also offers proactive threat hunting, allowing organizations to proactively search for and identify potential threats within their network. It integrates seamlessly with other Microsoft security solutions, such as Microsoft Defender XDR, to provide a unified and holistic security approach. With its centralized management console, organizations can easily deploy, configure, and monitor the security solution across their entire network.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a robust and scalable security solution that helps organizations protect their endpoints and data from evolving cyber threats.

Microsoft

Qualys Multi-Vector EDR is designed for real-time threat detection and response, offering comprehensive visibility into potential security breaches across endpoints.

This solution integrates seamlessly with other Qualys modules, facilitating automated workflows that streamline incident management and enhance efficiency in monitoring and mitigating cyber threats. With features like real-time monitoring, detailed reporting, and proactive alerting, security teams can quickly identify and address vulnerabilities. While appreciated for its scalability and ease of deployment, users suggest improvements in integration, reporting, and configuration to further enhance its capabilities.

What are the key features of Qualys Multi-Vector EDR?

Real-time Threat Detection: Continuously monitors endpoints to detect potential threats immediately.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with other Qualys modules and existing systems for streamlined operations.
Automated Response: Automates incident response workflows to enhance efficiency and reduce manual tasks.
Detailed Reporting: Provides in-depth reports to support proactive security measures and quick remediation.
Scalability: Suitable for businesses of varying sizes due to its scalable architecture.

What are the benefits and ROI to look for when evaluating Qualys Multi-Vector EDR?

Enhanced Security: Comprehensive threat detection ensures robust security measures.
Improved Efficiency: Automated workflows save time and reduce manual intervention.
Quick Remediation: Real-time alerts and detailed reports facilitate swift vulnerability mitigation.
Cost-effective Deployment: Scalable and resource-efficient architecture suitable for businesses large and small.

Qualys Multi-Vector EDR is implemented across industries such as finance, healthcare, and retail, where real-time threat detection and automated response are critical. Its ability to integrate with existing systems and provide detailed reporting makes it a valuable asset for enhancing cybersecurity measures in diverse environments.

Qualys

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank

Petrofrac, Metro CSG, Christus Health

Pacific Dental Services, Greenhill and Co, Heffernan Insurance Brokers

Buyer's Guide

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

March 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Microsoft and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR). Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.