We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Compare Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. McAfee Endpoint Security

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Featured Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. McAfee Endpoint Security and other solutions. Updated: November 2021.
554,382 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

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

Pros
"It doesn't impact the devices. It is an agent-based solution, and we see no performance knock on cell phones. That was a big thing for us, especially in the mobile world. We don't see battery degradation like you do with other solutions which really drain the battery, as they're constantly doing things. That can shorten the useful life of a device.""It is a very stable program.""The threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files has been great.""Another of my favorite features is called the Device Trajectory, where it shows everything that's going on, on a computer. It shows the point in time when a virus is downloaded, so you can see if the user was surfing the internet or had a program open. It shows every running process and file access on the computer and saves it like a snapshot when it detects something malicious. It also has a File Trajectory, so you can even see if that file has been found on any of your other computers that have AMP.""The solution makes it possible to see a threat once and block it everywhere across all endpoints and the entire security platform. It has the ability to block right down to the file and application level across all devices based on policies, such as, blacklisting and whitelisting of software and applications. This is good. Its strength is the ability to identify threats very quickly, then lock them and the network down and block the threats across the organization and all devices, which is what you want. You don't want to be spending time working out how to block something. You want to block something very quickly, letting that flow through to all the devices and avoiding the same scenario on different operating systems.""The solution's integration capabilities are excellent. It's one of the best features.""If somebody has been compromised, the question always is: How has it affected other devices in the network? Cisco AMP gives you a very neat view of that.""The visibility and insight this solution gives you into threats is pretty granular. It has constant monitoring. You can get onto the device trajectory to look at a threat, but you can also see what happened prior to the threat. You can see what happened after the threat. You can see what other applications were incorporated into the execution of the threat. For example, you have the event, but you see that the event was launched by Google Chrome, which was launched by something else. Then, after the event, something else was launched by whatever the threat was. Therefore, it gives you great detail, a timeline, and continuity of events leading up to whatever the incident is, and then, after. This helps you understand and nail down what the threat is and how to fix it."

More Cisco Secure Endpoint Pros »

"The dashboard is customizable.""The ability to kind of stitch everything together and see the actual complete picture is very useful. I guess you'd call it a playbook. Some people call it the forensics analysis of what was happening on particular endpoints when they detected some malicious behavior, and what transpired before that to cause that. It is also very user friendly. The way they have done everything and integrated all the solutions that they've purchased over the years to make it a very seamless, effective product is very good. One thing about Palo Alto is that they take the products or services that they purchase and make them seamless for the end user as compared to some companies that purchase other companies and then just kind of have their products off to the side or keep different interfaces. Palo Alto doesn't do that.""The behavior-based detection feature is valuable.""Stability is a primary factor, and then there's the ease of distribution and policy management.""It's a nice product that's stable and scalable.""It integrates well into the environment.""The most valuable for us is the correlation feature.""They did what they said. This solution could apply to any scenario."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pros »

"The performance is good.""We like the management of the ePO, and we like the management console.""The solution provides dashboard control, so we can centrally monitor the entire status of our organization.""I have found the most valuable features to be the ability to manage the solution from anywhere and having an overview of the companies security.""There is a new feature where you can set thresholds for all the CPU consumption allowing for no consumption on the servers when the scans happen. It is a separate plugin or addon, and if we have it on all the virtual machines it automatically checks the resources, and based on that, it will schedule the scans. That is something that I have not seen in other antivirus solutions, such as Symantec.""It's quite easy to install agents.""McAfee EndPoint Security has a lot of good features that work well if they are implemented properly.""What I like best is the integrated end-to-end security that works with the security information and events manager."

More McAfee Endpoint Security Pros »

Cons
"The room for improvement would be on event notifications. I have mine tuned fairly well. I do feel that if you subscribe to all the event notification types out-of-the-box, or don't really go through and take the time to filter out events, the notifications can become overwhelming with information. Sometimes, when you're overwhelmed with information, you just say, "I'm not going to look at anything because I'm receiving so much." I recommend the vendor come up with a white paper on the best practices for event notifications.""The GUI needs improvement, it's not good.""Maybe there is room for improvement in some of the automated remediation. We have other tools in place that AMP feeds into that allow for that to happen, so I look at it as one seamless solution. But if you're buying AMP all by itself, I don't know if it can remove malicious software after the fact or if it requires the other tools that we use to do some of that.""We don't have issues. We think that Cisco covers all of the security aspects on the market. They continue to innovate in the right way.""I would recommend that the solution offer more availability in terms of the product portfolio and integration with third-party products.""The technical support is very slow.""The one challenge that I see is the use of multiple endpoint protection platforms. For instance, we have AMP, but we also have Microsoft Windows Defender, System Center Endpoint Protection, and Microsoft Malware Protection Engine deployed. So, we have a bunch of different things that do the same thing. What winds up happening is, e.g., if I get an alert for a potential incident or malware and want to pull the file, I'll go to fetch the file to analyze it. But, one of these other programs has already gotten it, so the file has already been quarantined by another endpoint protection system. AMP doesn't realize that and the file fetch fails, then you're left wondering what's going on.""I would like to see integration with Cisco Analytics."

More Cisco Secure Endpoint Cons »

"There are some third-party solutions that are difficult to integrate with, which is something that can be improved.""The dashboard could use some significant improvement, just making it more useful with more information. It has a limited amount of information right now. It is customizable, but I'd love to see a better out-of-box dashboard.""In an upcoming release, the solution could improve by proving hard disk encryption. If it could support this it would be a complete solution.""It should support more mobile operating systems. That is one of the cons of their infrastructure right now.""The installation should be easier and the Palo Alto pre-sales and sales teams should have more information on the product because they don't know what they are selling.""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.""Technology evolves every day, so it would be nice if it gets more secure. It can also have more integration with other platforms.""The solution can never really be an on-premises solution based simply on the way it is set up. It needs metadata to run and improve. Having an on-premises solution would cut it off from making improvements."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Cons »

"I would like to see more integration with third-party products.""They can make it free, but that's not going to happen.""While we are pleased with the endpoint solution, there should also be a separate one for the firewall.""They can improve its resource consumption, such as memory, and maybe provide better or smaller updates. It always takes a lot of resources, but it has been getting better. I have been using McAfee products for the last 20 years or so, and I know it is getting better.""The user interface could be improved by making it more user-friendly. There are multiple solutions and there is no clear line differentiating all of them. There is a centralized console where we manage everything but most of the administrators feel a little confused when it comes to managing multiple products from a single place.""It would be nice if the solution was a bit more stable.""There are more secure featured solutions from McAfee on the market but for smaller companies like ours, they are too expensive.""The initial setup isn't so easy. You need to know what you are doing."

More McAfee Endpoint Security Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"The pricing and licensing are reasonable. The cost of AMP for Endpoints is inline with all the other software that has a monthly endpoint cost. It might be a little bit higher than other antivirus type products, but we're only talking about a dollar a month per user. I don't see that cost as being an issue if it's going to give us the confidence and security that we're looking for. We have had a lot of success and happiness with what we're using, so there's no point in changing.""Our company was very happy with the price of Cisco AMP. It was about a third of what we were paying for System Center Endpoint Protection.""In our case, it is a straightforward annual payment through our Enterprise Agreement.""Whenever you are doing the licensing process, I would highly advise to look at what other Cisco solutions you have in your organization, then evaluate if an Enterprise Agreement is the best way to go. In our case, it was the best way to go. Since we had so many other Cisco products, we were able to tie those in. We were actually able to get several Cisco security solutions for less than if we had bought three or four Cisco security solutions independently or ad hoc.""There are a couple of different consumption models: Pay up front, or if you have an enterprise agreement, you can do a monthly thing. Check your licensing possibilities and see what's best for your organization.""We have a license for 3,000 users and if we get up to 3,100 users, it doesn't stop working, but on the next renewal date you're supposed to go in there and add that extra 100 licenses. It's really good that they let you grow and expand and then pay for it. Sometimes, with other products, you overuse a license and they just don't work.""We can know if something bad is potentially happening instantaneously and prevent it from happening. We can go to a device and isolate it before it infects other devices. In our environment, that's millions of dollars saved in a matter of seconds.""Licensing fees are on a yearly basis and I am happy with the pricing."

More Cisco Secure Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice »

"The price of the solution is high for the license and in general.""If one wishes to work with another team or large number of users at a future point, he must purchase a license for them.""The pricing is a little high. It is per user per year.""This is an expensive solution.""It's about $55 per license on a yearly basis.""It has a yearly renewal.""The price is on the higher side, but it's okay.""I don't have any issues with the pricing. We are satisfied with the price."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice »

"I am happy with the pricing.""For each computer that is connected to the server McAfee charges us for each computer based on our license agreement.""We pay 650 Rand for a license. It is a perpetual license which we normally run for two years.""When comparing the solution to others it is a bit expensive. We are on a monthly license.""The price of the solution is in the middle range compare to others and could be reduced. There are not any additional costs.""The pricing is great and licensing fees are billed on a yearly basis.""Since the maintenance is done by our own team, the price of the subscription should really be cheaper.""The price of McAfee is pretty similar to Symantec, and there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."

More McAfee Endpoint Security Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
554,382 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The most valuable feature is signature-based malware detection.
Top Answer: Licensing fees are on a yearly basis and I am happy with the pricing.
Top Answer: The GUI needs improvement, it's not good. There are false positives in emails. At times, the emails are blocked and… more »
Top Answer: Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks.… more »
Top Answer: Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions… more »
Top Answer: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface… more »
Top Answer: The flexible manageability of McAfee Endpoint Security is one of our favorite aspects of this solution. You can deploy… more »
Top Answer: Tech support is responsive. They're good, the very best.
Top Answer: People, naturally, go for a yearly license. I am happy with the pricing.
Comparisons
Also Known As
Cisco AMP for Endpoints
Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection, McAfee Endpoint Protection, Total Protection for Endpoint, Intel Security Total Protection for Endpoint, MCAFEE Complete Endpoint Protection
Learn More
Overview

Advanced Malware Protection (AMP) is subscription-based, managed through a web-based management console, and deployed on a variety of platforms that protects endpoints, network, email and web Traffic. AMP key features include the following: Global threat intelligence to proactively defend against known and emerging threats, Advanced sandboxing that performs automated static and dynamic analysis of files against more than 700 behavioral indicators, Point-in-time malware detection and blocking in real time and Continuous analysis and retrospective security regardless of the file's disposition and Continuous analysis and retrospective security.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is the world's first detection and response app that natively integrates network, endpoint and cloud data to stop sophisticated attacks. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks accurately detects threats with behavioral analytics and reveals the root cause to speed up investigations.

McAfee Complete Endpoint Protection allows you to protect all of your devices with intelligent, collaborative security, in one easy-to-manage, integrated solution. Our integrated endpoint security framework helps remove redundancies, enables fast, proven performance and offers an architecture to align both current and future security investments. With a flexible choice of cloud-based or a local management console, security administrators also get true centralized management that simplifies ongoing tasks, deployment and monitoring.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco Secure Endpoint
Learn more about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks
Learn more about McAfee Endpoint Security
Sample Customers
Heritage Bank, Mobile County Schools, NHL University, Thunder Bay Regional, Yokogawa Electric, Sam Houston State University, First Financial Bank
CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
inHouseIT, Seagate Technology
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company19%
Government13%
Manufacturing Company13%
Financial Services Firm6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider24%
Computer Software Company23%
Government7%
Financial Services Firm5%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm13%
Computer Software Company13%
Consumer Goods Company13%
Healthcare Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company24%
Comms Service Provider22%
Government7%
Energy/Utilities Company4%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm24%
Computer Software Company16%
Government13%
Energy/Utilities Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company28%
Comms Service Provider21%
Government8%
Manufacturing Company6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise18%
Large Enterprise46%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business28%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise51%
REVIEWERS
Small Business44%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise36%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business36%
Midsize Enterprise15%
Large Enterprise49%
REVIEWERS
Small Business38%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise42%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business37%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise39%
Find out what your peers are saying about Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. McAfee Endpoint Security and other solutions. Updated: November 2021.
554,382 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 6th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 28 reviews while McAfee Endpoint Security is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) with 37 reviews. Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.2, while McAfee Endpoint Security is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks writes "Has a centralized console and does predictive analysis of malware". On the other hand, the top reviewer of McAfee Endpoint Security writes "Protect your business against a wide variety of threats". Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, SentinelOne and Check Point Harmony Endpoint, whereas McAfee Endpoint Security is most compared with McAfee MVISION Endpoint, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon and Tanium. See our Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. McAfee Endpoint Security report.

See our list of best Endpoint Protection for Business (EPP) vendors.

We monitor all Endpoint Protection for Business (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.