Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Reviews

We primarily use the product as endpoint security which we have deployed on all servers and locations. This is not limited to the endpoint, however, as it has further integration with the firewalls and email solutions. Therefore, it can give us quick visibility in case there is any malicious or suspicious activity happening.

The solution offers a very high-performance. 

The solution has analytics that watch patterns and trends. If there is a change in user behavior or communication, it has the ability to track that. 

The solution has a very helpful isolation feature. If any system gets compromised, with one click I can access the system and isolate it from other networks, and then go into further forensic investigation of the current threat without compromising anything else.

There are a lot of lead solutions in this space, however, Palo Alto is number one.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

The solution should enhance the ADR and reporting. As of right now, they are giving reports, which are okay, however, there are other ways to get better reporting. That is an area where I already requested that Palo Alto work on.

In reporting they should have a customizable dashboard due to the fact that C-level people don't like reporting to the IT department. They prefer to have a real-time dashboard. That kind of dashboard needs to have various customizations. 

They should extend the solution for URL filtering, as other endpoint security products are doing that already. Nowadays, users are working from home and therefore we have plenty of traffic back through the data center just for URL filtering security. If that functionality could be there in the endpoint, then we would be happy. It would ensure users working from home couldn't access malicious websites. 

We've been using the solution for one year. Before that, we were using Palo Alto Trap.

The solution is very stable. I pretty much depend on product stability. Over the last six months, we have been able to see it's that Palo Alto is more stable than most. There is no such issue in that regard. 

This is a very stable product, whether it is running on a database or email system or on any platform. It works perfectly fine.

The solution is very scalable. This is due to the fact that it is being managed through the cloud making it easy to deploy to a thousand endpoints. There is no issue at all. As long as there's enough space for the solution to expand, it can grow out to any size you need.

Technical support from Palo Alto is perfect. However, we have first-level support from a third-party. They sometimes take time to respond, which is not ideal. That said, when we get aligned with the tech support from Palo Alto, that really works well. Their level one support is with other vendors, and level two and level three support is with Palo Alto. That's how they are set up. They deal with bigger issues.

Overall, we've been pretty satisfied with technical support.

We're service providers. We offer a variety of solutions to our clients, including Palo Alto, Cisco, Microsoft, and McAfee, depending on their needs. We don't just use or recommend one particular endpoint protection product.

About a year back I implemented Cisco and Palo Alto for our customer. Cisco AMP is also a good solution while it is running with the grid, however, I have not been involved with using it for three years.

In routing and switching, Cisco is good. However, Cisco AMP, which is an endpoint security, requires you to work with many other AMP solutions from Cisco. 

My first preference would be Palo Alto and my second preference would be Cisco AMP.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It is very straightforward and very easy to implement. I implemented it for 1000 or so users, and it took only about one month to execute. Even when we were in a pandemic situation where users were at home, we did it that quickly. It is very easy to deploy.

The pricing is actually very reasonable. Palo Alto is very invested in some commercial endeavors and they have simplified their license. A team license can be used on-cloud, or on-prem. We have not faced segregation on any technologies, so a simple license gets any user anywhere without limitations. It is easy to increase the license as it's a cloud service. You just speak to your account manager and they can increase the licenses for you.

While we deal with the cloud deployment model, we've also often used the on-premises deployment.

I'd advise other companies to use the solution. It really is the best one out there.

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. The reporting is a bit weak, and it's my understanding they are working on that. However, performance-wise and security-wise, this is the best product.

I am an integrator. I deploy and implement solutions for our customers.

It is a simple platform to use.

The dashboard is good, it's very clean and very simple to read. The information the dashboard provides is very clear.

This solution is not complete enough to help us. We use a different platform that provides us with more information.

In my opinion, it is not a very complete program. I prefer to work with Carbon Black. It's a better solution as well as Cynet. For example, I use Cynet when I check installations, which provides me with more information. It is not easy to use for beginners, but it provides me with more information, which is lacking in Cortex. When it comes to core analysis, and security analysis, Cortex needs to provide more information. Cynet is a complete platform in my opinion.

We are ready to use a new solution called Deep Instinct. It's a new concept of the security platform. It's a very new company from the USA.

I would like to see a feature that allows you to check the endpoints included. I am currently having trouble checking the endpoints when using Cortex. Including this feature would benefit the platform's endpoints.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is absolutely stable.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is a scalable platform.

I am currently using QRadar in more than one enterprise, as well as Cynet, and Darktrace. We also use all of the Microsoft platforms with QRadar.

I have a team working on this solution. So I assisted a customer in deploying and implementing this solution. My colleague and I have formed a team. I am a SOC manager, my new role is that of a SOC manager. I don't use it directly, but I try to assist my colleague in working with more enterprises or customers. We have, I believe, five or six different IBM QRadar platforms.

We use several solutions and they are all good, but each one is different.

Cynet is a good platform, but helpful for my team because it is not simple to understand.

I would rate Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks a seven out of ten.

As with any advanced malware protection tool, it's really about the results and getting the security you need. We are end users and I'm a cybersecurity incident response analyst.

I like that the product has behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection. When it comes to zero day attacks and targeted attacks, signature detection is not able to detect problems. Behavior-based detection is able to detect attacks tailored specifically for your environment, or malware that doesn't yet have a known malicious signature. It's the nature of how the data is processed that makes the tool really powerful. 

The downside to the solution is that there are a large number of false positives. There are a whole lot of different things for business automated actions, and it's hard to sort through all that. Without some assistance and suppression of false positives from Palo Alto or some event triaging that you might have enabled on your SIEM, you'll continue to get the high number of false positives. It's related more to the lack of capability to easily identify and suppress false positives before they're presented to you. There needs to be a function for suppressing false positives for types of machines and not necessarily for the actual groups.

I've used this solution for close to six months while we were evaluating it. 

Since Palo Alto was giving us the proof of concept, we had direct access to them.

It takes quite a few people to set it up. I would say the biggest difference between Palo Alto XDR and something like Cisco AMP outside of the actual detection is going to be the ease of implementation. Cisco AMP only requires one person to go through all the groups and configure policies. With XDR you define groups based on types of machines and commonalities in the machines. It's not like you just send a connector to machines and they're part of that group in that policy. It means there is a whole lot more to configure on XDR.

The same things apply to anyone looking to implement any form of anti-malware agent. You really want to take the time to make sure your environment is organized and configured the way that you want it to be, because once you start getting empty policies and machines in run groups, you run into a pretty big mess. Another thing would be documentation. If you're adding suppressions or custom detections or your AOCs, keep a document which logs all the changes, because people come and go, and handing down an anti-malware tool to somebody that doesn't know how or why it was configured a certain way, could make things difficult.

It would be a tremendous amount of work for us to implement Networks in a company our size. We have a whole bunch of projects going on right now that are pretty important and since we already have that advanced malware protection tool and AMP, which we think is good, we don't necessarily think Networks is as powerful at detection. On other projects, if we were going to go ahead and turn around and move forward with Palo Alto, it would mean taking a step backwards and reimplementing an anti-malware agent that we already have. That said, my impression is that it's a really good tool and you can get a lot out of it. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

Cortex XDR is used for monitoring and securing large numbers of endpoints, typically in the range of 5,000 to 10,000. It is considered to be an effective solution for mitigating security risks in these environments.

The most valuable feature of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is its machine-learning capabilities. Additionally, there is full integration with other solutions.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve by adding a sandbox feature to better compete with their competitors which have it.

I have been using Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks for approximately four months.

The solution is stable.

I rate the stability of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks an eight out of ten.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is a highly scalable solution.

I rate the scalability of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks an eight out of ten.

The support team at Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is very responsive and helpful in addressing any issues or challenges that may arise. They are highly accessible and knowledgeable about the products they offer. Overall, I have been very satisfied with the support provided by Palo Alto while deploying their solutions.

We previously used CrowdStrike Falcon X.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is easier to understand and use compared to CrowdStrike Falcon X endpoint. The dashboard and interface of CrowdStrike Falcon X can be cluttered, making it difficult for some users to understand where to begin when it comes to incident response or threat hunting. In contrast, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is simple to navigate and understand.

The initial setup of the solution can take approximately one hour. One hour is the longest it has ever taken us for the setup. We have not had an issue with the setup.

I rate the initial setup of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks a seven out of ten.

We do the implementation of the solution.

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.

Customers tend to rather have a less expensive solution than the best one.

I rate the price of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks an eight out of ten.

We are using two engineers for the maintenance of the solution.

In our market here in Malaysia, the solution is perceived as being of high quality and providing good service. 

I would recommend this solution to others, it is a good solution. It is my job to recommend solutions.

I rate Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks an eight out of ten.

The solution is not perfect and that is why I gave the rating of eight.

We are using Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks as an endpoint solution.

One thing that I like about Cortex XDR is its ability to detect all the suspicious or malicious binaries, and it can integrate with Palo Alto Firewall. 

I have been using the product for about three and a half years.

The stability is very good.

It is scalable for those who use it.

If they want to do a POC, they can look for other market trenders that are there like Trend Micro. They also have their XDR solution. FireEye also has its XDR solution. They should do a comparison on what is based on their requirement. Based on their requirement, they should select the vendor. We saw that there were quite a few ransomware attacks that were not detected by traditional antivirus, so we moved to the Palo Alto solution. Likewise, the companies who want to implement EDR solutions, have to look at the problem statement. Based on their problem statement, they should work and find out a feasible solution.

The setup is quite easy. We had appropriate support from the manager. One thing that was missing was the integration part. Currently, they don't have out-of-box integration with IBM QRadar, or if they have the integration, the integration doesn't work well. That is something that they have to look at going forward.

It took around three to four weeks, because there was a full process change, and then we had to get approval for getting it deployed. 

I would rate Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks a nine out of ten.

We are in the testing stage of using Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. We are using it in order to ensure the corporate network servers are protected. Additionally, we need to use a specialized tool.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is easy to use and does not consume a lot of hardware resources. 

Cortex analyzes the network and users to detect additional risks and threats that the other vendor's solutions don't detect.

We have found that there are times Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks does not detect some of the viruses, we have to use another protection solution called Kaspersky.

The tool should have the ability to test an environment to see what percentage it is secure against threats, such as ransomware. This would allow for adjustments to be made to the network for more security. We don't have the capability to test the networks daily there should be a parameter in order to report on the healthy of the network for security vulnerabilities.

I have been using Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks for approximately two weeks.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is highly stable. 

We don't have any user reports suggesting that there is a high level of resource consumption.

In regard to the scalability, the tool could have additional agents to provide a full installation in the company. This would make the installation much easier when scaling the solution, we should not have to use another tool.

The installation approach is to do it one computer at a time, but if Cotex could provide an additional tool in order for us to reach all the elements of the network would be very helpful. It should be done automatically. I understand that if the tool has the capability to analyze the network, it should be able to read the computers' elements in the network and in other ways.

The support is very efficient and professional. They have provided us with the tools and the basic elements to understand how the solution works. They have helped us prepare some specifics for our installation.

We use the Kaspersky protection solution. Kaspersky works based on blacklists, if you are on the blacklist it is working well but if you are not Kaspersky does not work.

The installation of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is easy. The setup is not complicated.

It would be a good idea for the company to provide at their website videos that are translated in Spanish related to technical skills. This would be very useful and would have a lot of value.

The world in commercial terms, speaks English, we have to understand that with tools such as this, if the solution was in other languages more companies would be able to exploit the tool. If we don't have this information in our native language, we will not use the tool to its full potential.

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 recommend that the company review the pricing model in the Latin American market. They need to determine how to impose, or how to bring a more accessible cost in order to accelerate the implementations in American countries.

We have been comparing Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks to Cisco solutions.

It is important to have security tools in order to review, monitoring and hunt the potential attacks. We have found in our test Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks to be a very good tool.

It's an efficient solution. I recommend this solution to my business partners and other companies.

I rate Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks a ten out of ten.

Other solutions I have used I would rate a seven out of ten. There is not something that comes close to this solution.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is a network management solution.

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

I have sold Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks within the last 12 months.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks should be a stable solution.

The scalability of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is very good.

The cost of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is $55 to $90 USD per endpoint per month.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks an eight out of ten.

We have Cortex XDR on our endpoints, and we have managed threat hunting. We are using it for everything related to security. If we have a device we believe is compromised, we can do a scan of the device to check for malware. We look for indicators of compromise in our network. We also look for behavioral things, such as if people are, for some reason, sending a bunch of information out. We also monitor USB file copies to make sure sensitive data isn't leaving our systems. It is also for any kind of denial of service attack.

We are using its latest version. It is deployed on-prem. We have agent software on all our endpoints, and then we have on-prem devices managed through Panorama.

It has quite a bit of functionality. So, if anything weird happens on our network, Cortex normally lets us know.

Their XDR agent and their behavioral indicators of compromise (BIOC) are pretty nice. Their managed threat hunting is also pretty nice. They also have WildFire, which is a service for actively looking for malware. It's quite useful.

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

I have been using this solution for about a year.

It's incredibly stable. It's Palo Alto; it's top of the line.

It's enterprise-grade. They cover everybody from the federal government to large corporations. We're probably a pretty small network for them. We have about 2,000 endpoints.

I have used their support. I would rate them a four out of five.

Positive

We used to have Check Point. We switched because there were a lot of added features with Palo Alto that Check Point didn't have. It was an upgrade for us.

It is incredibly complex. It has a lot of parts. Its implementation took six months.

We worked with Palo Alto directly to look at our old firewalls and translate their configuration to Palo Alto.

There are three of us for deployment and maintenance.

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

You get out what you put in. So, the more you work with it, customize it, monitor it, and manage it, the more you'll get out of it.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. There are some bug updates that they were having issues with. Everything else has been pretty great. There is a lot more visibility than I expected.