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

NetWitness NDR vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR comparison

Sponsored
 

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

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Net...
Sponsored
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
115
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (4th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (4th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
NetWitness NDR
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
59th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (49th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (34th), Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (23rd), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (20th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (41st)
Qualys Multi-Vector EDR
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
77th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Network Detection and Response (NDR) (25th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.7%, down from 3.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetWitness NDR is 1.0%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys Multi-Vector EDR is 0.4%, 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
ProductMindshare (%)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks3.7%
NetWitness NDR1.0%
Qualys Multi-Vector EDR0.4%
Other94.9%
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.
reviewer1799727 - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager, IT Security Operations at a non-profit with 11-50 employees
Reliable and good support but can be expensive
I have no real complaints about the solution. Threat detection could be better. They need to enhance their threat intelligence feeds. We would like to have more IOCs or more trade intelligence to not only rely on the intelligence of the engineer in charge but to have some threat intelligence and some seeds of IOCs and to have the host have some artificial intelligence to reduce the number of false positives. I don't see this solution being very scalable. The solution is pricey.
reviewer1668453 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We can visualize and control the activities in the environment from anywhere."
"The most valuable for us is the correlation feature."
"The most valuable features of this product are the management capabilities, which allow an IT organization to get quite a good picture of attempted cyber attacks, and its out-of-the-box investigation capabilities."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks has changed the way my security team detects, investigates, and responds to threats, as we are able to see the files, unwanted files, unsecured files, and unauthorized files, so we are quarantining them."
"The product's most valuable features are massive user and feature intelligence exploit detection."
"Cortex XDR lets us manage several clients from the same console, and its endpoint defense is more advanced than traditional antivirus."
"The initial setup isn't too bad."
"It's very stable. I've never experienced downtime for the ASM console or ASM core."
"The detection rate and tracking features including historical tracking, tracking of the fires on the desk, and tracking of the file last monitored are all quite valuable for us."
"I would highly recommend the solution. Just go ahead and get it."
"NetWitness Endpoint's most valuable features are its interoperability across many different operating systems and the ease of pivoting from network to endpoint via a single console."
"We've contacted technical support several times. They've been very good. They have been able to help us resolve our issues."
"It is very easy to use, and its usability is great. The use cases are also very easy. The visualizations of the use cases are magnificent. You cannot find this in any other solution. From my point of view, it is great."
"It's a scalable solution. We have around five to eight customers using RSA NetWitness Endpoint, and we hope to increase the number of users."
"In my opinion, this is the best platform, world-wide, and I am happy with it."
"It is very easy to use, and its usability is great."
"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 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."
"The solution eats memory of the computer, unlike anything I've ever seen."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR does not detect malicious activity like in other anti-virus solutions like Trend Micro and Windows with Cisco."
"If you compare it to SentinelOne, which has more functionalities and detection capabilities on an open platform, the pricing on SentinelOne is far more reasonable and cheaper than Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks."
"It's not an ideal choice for smaller businesses, as you need a minimum of 200 endpoints to even use the solution at all."
"Additionally, I think the price is very high, and if it can be adjusted, I believe it will be a very good solution."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve its user interface, which is more complicated compared to competitors such as SentinelOne."
"I would like to see them include NDR (Network Detection Response). Then it would work well with SIEM Response."
"RSA NetWitness Network could improve on integration with non-native application integration."
"The integration of the solution needs to be improved. The dashboard needs lots of updates as well. In the next release, we would like to see advanced fraud detection features."
"NetWitness Endpoint's blocking feature does not work properly - if there's a malicious process, it's not possible to kill it via a custom rule unless and until it's flagged as malicious."
"The threat intelligence could improve in RSA NetWitness Endpoint."
"Its price could be improved. It is an expensive product. Its training is also too expensive. It would be great if they can have a better pricing scheme for the training."
"The deployment process is complex. I don't know why, but this solution will suddenly stop working. Logs stop coming. Often, one thing or another stops working. Most of the time, one of my team members is working with troubleshooting and working with technical support. Log passing is also one of the biggest challenge."
"The solution is modular, for example you can buy the RSA ePack, which you buy as a module is not part of the conduit solution. They could include it and have it as an all-in-one solution."
"We would like to see the hunting and investigation features of this solution improved, in order to provide better visibility of issues."
"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."
"My challenge is actually comparing offerings from different vendors across a threat spectrum that is very large."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"In terms of the cost Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is very expensive because we are a Mexican company and when you translate dollars to pesos the cost is very high. The solution is very expensive for Mexican companies. I understand that they have international prices, but I do not think it offsets the price enough for many companies in countries, such as Mexico. The amount it is reduced is not a massive percentage."
"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."
"It's about $55 per license on a yearly basis."
"The pricing is a little high. It is per user per year."
"The pricing seems fair, and I do like the licensing model. You use wherever they are, and it is elastic."
"Very costly product."
"I don't have any issues with the pricing. We are satisfied with the price."
"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."
"I do not have any opinion on the pricing or licensing of the product."
"It is an expensive product."
"The cost depends on the number of endpoints that you want to monitor, but it is not expensive."
"It is highly scalable. It can be bought based on your requirements."
"The price of the solution depends on the environment. If the environment is large then it will cost more. However, the larger the environment with more endpoints, you will receive an increased discount. If the environment is very small, then you might think it is expensive. It is always better to buy in bulk to receive a discount. The minimum number of assets is usually 500, with discounts on 1000 and 2000."
"We are on a three-year contract to use RSA NetWitness Network."
"The pricing is not very economical. It is a quite costly product for India. One thing is that when you purchase it, you have to purchase a module separately."
"They can easily adjust if you have the requirements which are required. If you have a budget cut or a budget constraint, they can bend."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.
907,816 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business46
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise54
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise6
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. ...
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,...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
RSA ECAT, NetWitness Network
Blue Hexagon
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
ADP, Ameritas, Partners Healthcare
Pacific Dental Services, Greenhill and Co, Heffernan Insurance Brokers
Find out what your peers are saying about SentinelOne, CrowdStrike, Microsoft and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR). Updated: July 2026.
907,816 professionals have used our research since 2012.