We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Fidelis Elevate based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Extended Detection and Response (XDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like Defender XDR's automation capabilities. XDR isn't automated by default, but you can automate it to respond. If an attack is performed anywhere within the organization, you can isolate that instance from the network. This is what I can figure out for it. When integrated with Sentinel, you can set up playbooks to automate all the alerts gathered on Sentinel from different Microsoft solutions. Sentinel has a wider range of capabilities than XDR."
"I like how Microsoft XDR and the other Microsoft products are integrated into a single unified security stack covering identity access management, endpoint protection, email, cloud applications, etc."
"The portal is quite user-friendly. There is integration with Office, Intune, and other products from the same portal. From there, we can see which policies are installed on a particular machine. We also can manage devices, groups, and tagging."
"The incident threat response and its ability to facilitate effective remediation against threats are the standout features."
"The integration between all the Defender products is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that Microsoft Defender XDR is easy to integrate with other Microsoft platforms or products."
"Advanced hunting is good. I like that. We can drill down to lots of details."
"The most valuable features are spam filtering, attachment filtering, and antivirus protection."
"The most valuable for us is the correlation feature."
"The solution allows us to make investigations. Other XDR solutions also provide similar capabilities but for investigation, Cortex XDR is better."
"If the user leaves our premises or network, Palo Alto Traps will still be on that endpoint and will still apply our policies."
"Stability is a primary factor, and then there's the ease of distribution and policy management."
"The protection offered by this product is good, as is the endpoint reporting."
"The initial setup isn't too bad."
"Traps has drastically reduced our endpoint attack surface via advanced detection capabilities, sandboxing of never before seen programs, and by drastically limiting where executables can launch in the first place."
"The management capabilities, allow an IT organization to get quite a good picture of attempted cyber attacks."
"After rack and stack, devices were up and running base configurations within two hours. As with any IPS, tuning is required to stop false positives. This is no different, but the ease of use of the interface allowed my team to start making adjustments within a few hours."
"What I like the most about this solution is the complexity. It covers a lot of areas, unlike other solutions."
"Compared to similar solutions, it's quite scalable. You just need to add more storage to scale-up."
"It has a rating system now so you can rate things up or down, depending on your environment. This means alerting can be customized, yet still pick up anomalies."
"Reporting is great, it is easy to do a quick search through 45 days of data for something of interest."
"It has also improved our hunt ability with quick search tools, to zone in on malware or other anomalies. It is able to link items to incidents from other consoles, and works natively with the SIEM."
"The initial setup is very straightforward. The deployment of the server doesn't take so long; about a day or two max."
"The solution's technical support is perfect, so I rate the technical support a ten out of ten"
"Customers say they want absolutely seamless integration between other Microsoft solutions and Defender XDR, including the ability to change device settings within the Defender portal. They need to contact the IT team responsible for the device management tools to change some settings. They would prefer that those changes be initiated directly from the Defender portal or applied from Intune without involving the IT operations team."
"Improving scalability, especially for very large tenants, could be beneficial for Microsoft Defender XDR."
"Defender also lacks automated detection and response. You need to resolve issues manually. You can manage multiple Microsoft security products from a single portal, and all your security recommendations are in one place. It's easy to understand and manage. However, I wouldn't say Defender is a single pane of glass. You still need to switch between all of the available Microsoft tools. You can see all the alerts in one panel, but you can't automate remediation."
"Microsoft tends to provide too many features, which makes the solution prone to bugs."
"Since all of our databases are updated and located in the cloud, I would like additional support for this."
"There are a few technical issues with Defender XDR that can be improved. Sometimes, the endpoint devices are not reporting properly to the Defender 365 portal. When you're getting all the information from the Microsoft portal, the devices are sometimes not in sync. We have hundreds of endpoint devices, some needing to be onboarded again."
"I would like more of the features in Defender for 365 to be included in the smaller licenses. Even if I buy a small license and don't need everything, security shouldn't be a question. Security is one of the main aspects of all projects from our side, so it would be nice to have more features in the smaller licenses."
"Microsoft 365 Defender does not have a unique package with emerging endpoint security technologies, such as EDR and XDR."
"Cortex XDR should have a lightweight agent, and the agent size should not be heavy."
"I would like to see them include NDR (Network Detection Response)."
"It is not very strong in terms of endpoint management. It should have additional features like DLP, encryption, or advanced device control. Currently, Cortex is good in terms of the security of the endpoints, but it is not as good as other vendors in terms of the management of the endpoint."
"It is not easy to sell Cortex XDR, not because it isn't a good tool. Its marketing needs to be improved."
"The solution lacks real-time, on-demand antivirus."
"We would also like to have advanced tech protection and email scanning."
"There's an overall lack of features."
"There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, is not user-friendly."
"Configuration, in terms of building the collector and communicating with endpoints, is complex."
"The reports in the endpoint area of Elevate can be improved."
"We position the solution as an antivirus, but this part of the solution needs improvement. They need to generally enhance the features that they have, rather than adding anything new."
"The interface bug needs to be squashed once and for all. This has been the predominant issue with an otherwise stellar product. It reboots itself unscheduled, about once a month, due to a memory buffer flaw in the interface."
"Fidelis Endpoint is an expensive product making it one of its shortcomings that needs improvement."
"There is room for improvement in email security. It's a security issue. If you're aiming for XDR, covering the entire threat landscape is crucial."
"I encounter difficulty removing certain entries in behavior or alerts; likewise, I am unable to add specific calls."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 80 reviews while Fidelis Elevate is ranked 20th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 7 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Fidelis Elevate is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "Perfect correlation and XDR capabilities for network traffic plus endpoint security". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fidelis Elevate writes "Advanced threat detection capabilities with comprehensive incident response features providing robust cybersecurity for organizations". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Darktrace, Symantec Endpoint Security and Trellix Endpoint Security, whereas Fidelis Elevate is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, VMware Carbon Black Cloud, Darktrace and Vectra AI. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Fidelis Elevate report.
See our list of best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) vendors and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.
