We performed a comparison between Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)."The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"Provides behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection."
"It'll not slow down your system when compared to others."
"One of the main benefits of the solution is its intelligence to correlate the events into an incident."
"Cortex XDR can integrate the firewalls and determine the tendencies of the attacks. It's a new generation antivirus, with protection endpoints and detection response. It is very easy to use and everybody can operate the solution."
"The dashboard is customizable."
"It integrates well into the environment."
"Has great threat detection capabilities."
"I've found the solution to be highly scalable for enterprises."
"Accessing the internet with a proxy from anywhere is the most valuable feature. It ensures that users are only able to browse legitimate websites. If they happen to go to a legitimate website with a malicious payload, the isolation feature will take care of that."
"It has reduced security events to follow up on. While it is not 100%, there has been probably a 90% or more reduction. We were getting hit left, right, and center constantly from people browsing the Internet and hitting bad websites. It was not just bad websites that were stood up to be malicious, but good sites that were compromised."
"The fact that it is a cloud proxy solution is another feature we like. For example, if you acquire a new company, you can use it to protect that new company without the need to install anything physically on their networks."
"For us, the primary goal is protection on the web, and that's extremely important. We're not using any of the other services at this time. The web part is key to the success of the organization. It gives us the ability to protect. It can isolate. It opens the session in an isolated format so that the code isn't running locally. It is running over in the Menlo environment, not in ours. It is not running on the local computer, whereas if you were to go to a normal website, it would run Java or something else on the local machine and potentially execute the malicious code locally. So, it does give us that level of protection."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Detections could be improved."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"Previously, the endpoint would leave the environment, not being on our VPN, essentially unable to interact with the server to upload files. It was unable to retrieve new file verdicts. It was using a thing called "local analysis" to determine if something was a malicious file or not. There was no dynamic analysis."
"The solution could improve by providing better integration with their own products and others."
"There are a large number of false positives."
"The dashboard is the area that needs to improve so that we can have the ability to drill down without having to go elsewhere to verify results."
"It is an enterprise-level solution. Its price could be less expensive."
"Impact on system performance is horrible, adding a lot of delays for users."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve by adding a sandbox feature to better compete with their competitors which have it."
"Every 30 or 40 days, there's a new version and we need to go and make sure our customer's laptops are upgraded."
"We are now transitioning to another solution. The main reason for that is that managing all of the exceptions and troubleshooting all of the issues our users have had connecting to the internet has become too significant in terms of workload, compared to what we hope we will have with another solution."
"In the best of all worlds, we wouldn't have to make any exceptions. However, that is a big ask because a lot of that depends on how websites are constructed. For example, there are some very complex, application-oriented sites that we end up making exceptions for. It is really not that big an issue for us to make the exceptions. We feel like we are doing that without a huge impact on our security posture, but we do have to make some exceptions for complex sites, e.g., mostly SaaS-type sites and applications."
"Currently, I don't have a good way to see which of my rules are being used in the access control lists. I have numerous entries, but are they all still needed? A report that would show me my list of who is allowed and whether we're actually using it would be useful because I can then go clean up my list. It would be easier to manage. We would eliminate the vulnerability of unused services."
"The user monitoring could still be improved."
More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 4th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 80 reviews while Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is ranked 21st in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 4 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is rated 9.2. 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 Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway writes "Secures users wherever they are and enable us to inspect SSL traffic, but we encountered too many issues". 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 Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Talon, Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Netskope Next Gen Secure Web Gateway.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.