We performed a comparison between Cynet and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. Cortex XDR presents an intuitive interface, advanced identification of risks, expandability, and compatibility with various other solutions. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools. Cortex XDR could use enhancements in hard disk encryption, security integration, and customer education.
Service and Support: Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. They have a dedicated support team that is available round the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents. Some customers were impressed with Palo Alto support, while others reported mixed experiences.
Ease of Deployment: Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly. Some users thought Cortex XDR’s deployment was fast and straightforward, while others consider it to be a complex and time-consuming task that requires thorough planning.
Pricing: Customers generally view Cynet's pricing and licensing experience as affordable and a good value for its features. Some reviewers said Cortex XDR is expensive, but others said it was reasonable for the robust feature set Cortex offers.
ROI: Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data. Cortex XDR creates value by ensuring system and data security rather than a financial return on investment.
Comparison Results: Our users favor Cynet over Cortex XDR. Cynet offers an all-encompassing cybersecurity solution, equipped with cutting-edge ransomware detection, protection against threats, SOC monitoring, and an easily navigable interface. Users praise Cynet for its swift and customized setup process tailored to individual customer requirements. Cortex XDR receives varying opinions regarding its initial setup, pricing, and customer support, with some users finding it complex and costly.
"The most valuable features are spam filtering, attachment filtering, and antivirus protection."
"From the perspective of Microsoft 365 XDR, the main benefit is a single, centralized dashboard offering the holistic visibility organizations crave."
"Email protection is the most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender XDR."
"The best feature is threat hunting. There are a lot of other features I like, such as the alert mechanism. The chain alert mechanism has a huge impact. It combines all the alerts into one incident and automatically correlates them with AI."
"The attack simulation is excellent; initially, this feature wasn't very robust, but Microsoft improved what we could achieve with it. We can now customize our practice phishing emails and include our company logo, for example. Attack simulation also helps integrate with third-party solutions where applicable and provides an overview of our security architecture through testing. The summary includes areas for improvement in our protection and what steps we need to take to get there."
"The most valuable aspect is undoubtedly the exploration capability"
"Advanced hunting is good. I like that. We can drill down to lots of details."
"It has great stability."
"Cortex XDR lets us manage several clients from the same console, and its endpoint defense is more advanced than traditional antivirus."
"Traps is quite a stable product. Once it was properly deployed and configured, you have nothing to be worried about."
"After deploying Traps, we saw the performance of the network improve by 65 to 70 percent."
"The one feature of Palo Alto Networks Traps that our organization finds most valuable is the App ID service."
"The solution is a new generation XDR that has a lot of artificial intelligence modules."
"I like the centralized console and the predictive analysis it does of malware. It is very stable and also scalable."
"The initial setup is pretty easy."
"This software helps us understand any issues that may arise when someone is not at work."
"The interface is exceptionally clear and easy to understand."
"It is quite stable. I would rate the stability of the solution a nine out of ten."
"We are very satisfied with the level of performance we get."
"Cynet is light and transparent when downloaded. The product's data aggregation is also valuable since you can see everything you need on a page."
"This solution requires less management and is very easy to use."
"It is a very stable solution...It is a very scalable solution...The initial setup of Cynet was easy."
"We are using almost all of the features and we find it quite good overall."
"We are protecting all our workstations."
"What could be improved in Microsoft 365 Defender is its licensing, e.g. it should be more consolidated and would be good if it has some optimizations. Improving the alerts and notifications, in terms of adding more details, would also be good for this solution."
"The cost can be high if you want to build custom license packages. Another area for improvement is the policies. In Azure, we need to implement policies in JSON format, but in 365 Defender 365, it would be helpful to use a different format so we can customize the platform."
"365 Defender has multiple subsets, including Defender for Cloud Apps. When integrating Defender for Cloud Apps with apps on third-party cloud platforms like AWS or GCP, there are limitations on our ability to control user activities. If Microsoft added more control over third-party products, that would be a game-changer and help us quite a lot."
"For some scenarios, it provides good visibility into threats, and for some scenarios, it doesn't. For example, sometimes the URLs within the emails have destinations, and you do get a screenshot and all further details, but it's not always the case. It would be good if they did a better job of enabling that for all the emails that they identified as malicious. When you get an email threat, you can go into the email and see more details, but the URL destination feature doesn't always show you a screenshot of the URL in that email. It also doesn't always give you the characteristics relating to that URL. It would be quite good if the information is complete where it says that we identified this URL, and this is what it looks like. There should be some threat intel about it. It should give you more details."
"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."
"One of the biggest downsides of Microsoft products, in general, is that the menus are often difficult to find, as they tend to move from place to place between versions."
"There should be better information for experts on features in the solution. What I see when reading about features in Microsoft 365 Defender is that it is always general information. If Microsoft could go deeper into details for the experts about how to use the tools, usage of it would be more familiar and it would be easier to use."
"Generally, antivirus products provide a central control to manage every device in terms of who is installing it or who is trying to disable it, but Microsoft doesn't have such a control center for the antivirus product it provides."
"Although I would say this product is highly-rated, it could probably do more because nothing does everything that you want."
"There are some default policies which sometimes affect our applications and cause them to run around. In the hotel industry, we use a different type of data versus Oracle and SQL. By default, there are some policies which stop us from running properly. Because of this, the support level is also not that strong. We have to wait to get a results."
"Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats."
"When it comes to core analysis, and security analysis, Cortex needs to provide more information."
"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."
"The encryption is not up to the mark."
"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."
"There's an overall lack of features."
"Compliance reports need to improve."
"An administration feature will be useful for Cynet."
"The solution just needs to keep maturing and they need to keep up with the threat landscape to ensure they're protecting clients well as time passes."
"They have automated response capability, and they're moving more and more into SOAR capability. They have built-in deception technology with host-file users, phantoms, etc. We used to call them honeypots. So, they're on target. They're doing a really good job, and they should continue to improve with SOAR."
"SIEM - Although with their Centralised Log Management Cynet has created the basis for SIEM functionality, this is to be expanded in the near future."
"The command line interface could be improved."
"The inability to add contact information inside the Cynet is also an issue because it makes things more complicated. I would like to have a simple feature to enter a contact name and number for the person taking care of that unit or that server."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the usability of this product for new threats. Meaning, not everything which is new is properly seen by the product and not all the required actions are taken."
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 Cynet is ranked 9th in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) with 35 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Cynet is rated 8.8. 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 Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". 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 Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Stellar Cyber Open XDR. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Cynet report.
See our list of best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) vendors, best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors, and best Ransomware Protection 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.
