No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

BigFix vs Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Net...
Sponsored
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
122
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (5th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (3rd), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
BigFix
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
21st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
100
Ranking in other categories
Configuration Management (9th), Patch Management (7th), Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) (10th), Autonomous Endpoint Management (7th)
Bitdefender Hypervisor Intr...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
49th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (44th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.8%, up from 3.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of BigFix is 2.0%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection is 1.0%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks3.8%
BigFix2.0%
Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection1.0%
Other93.2%
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

ABHISHEK_SINGH - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Process Expert at A.P. Moller - Maersk
Gained full visibility and streamlined threat detection through behavior-based insights and AI integration
Initially, we got to have a lot of false positives when we onboarded, but nowadays it's quite smooth. We have fine-tuned our security policies and allowed different levels of policies to get rid of those false positives. Currently, we are getting a fairly good amount of incidents that are not false positives or benign, but actionable items. The process is streamlined. In the initial days, the operations used to get involved in a lot of benign and other activities, but now the process is streamlined. We are leveraging the auto-detection and remediation plans. The operations teams are now more involved in other business roles as well, not just looking into the logs and fetching out what's happening there. They have fixed a lot of things. Initially, they didn't have IAC code drift detection, cloud posture management, or security posture management, but they have those now. They purchased different vendors and did a merger with that. They have now Prisma Cloud that gets integrated and now they are working with Cortex Cloud. Everything that was negative has now been addressed, and the product altogether looks to be in a very better and mature shape now. Currently, it's more or less detecting the workloads with AI-based best practices. Since most organizations are consuming AI agents and other things, we are looking forward to seeing what other feature enhancements Palo Alto can support in that.
InderjeetSingh4 - PeerSpot reviewer
Administrator at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
End-to-end automation has simplified patching and software deployment across thousands of servers
There is one feature in BigFix called the automation patch policy that requires enhancement. When an action is initiated through the patch policy, it appears on the console but arrives in chunks. When targeting hundreds of servers from the patch policy, the actions come in chunks such as ten out of six, ten out of nine, or ten out of fifteen. This fragmented approach creates a significant challenge for the patching team to monitor the action status. I would recommend that the development team provide a single action or one to two actions instead of multiple actions requiring individual monitoring. A broad status update could be provided to the client indicating the overall progress of the patch policy implementation rather than requiring monitoring of every individual action. This would reduce the bandwidth required by the team to track multiple actions on the console.
Muhammad-Imran - PeerSpot reviewer
Network administrator at Al Hussan Group
Stable but bad technical support, and an out of date database
We primarily use the solution to protect our business The solution protects us so that we have regular security from attacks. It prevents disasters from happening on our system. The endpoint protection is the solution's most valuable feature. The database needs improvement. It needs to be…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The multi-layered approach to the product gives you confidence that it will stop exploits, ransomware, worms, or viruses from compromising endpoints, essentially providing peace of mind."
"Monitoring is most valuable."
"We can visualize and control the activities in the environment from anywhere."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The stability is pretty good except for one or two cases, and based on the performance, it's been okay with pretty high performance, no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze."
"The most valuable for us is the correlation feature."
"The most valuable feature of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is its machine-learning capabilities. Additionally, there is full integration with other solutions."
"It has absolutely improved the way our organization functions, we are more secure, it is giving us more peace of mind, and it has found malicious activity happening on our endpoints that probably would not have been detected if we didn't have it."
"Almost every feature is wonderful in BigFix. It is very stable, and we can rely on it. It is an awesome tool."
"Reliability of the agent and the ability to troubleshoot actions after they've been taken are the most valuable features."
"It allows us to quickly deploy capabilities that we need, whether it be security or non-security. We use it to keep systems up to date, deploy new drivers, find the information we need in the case of security incidents. The capability allows us to gather a lot of information very quickly and it also allows us to have a centralized reporting feature and a centralized deployment capability which is nice."
"BigFix has drastically reduced the maintenance window period to patch and reboot servers."
"The product is less costly when compared to other solutions, and this is a good solid solution for what we have paid."
"With BigFix, in 10 to 15 minutes, you're up and running."
"The interface is easy to use, and it's not complicated to create tasks; it offers all of the features that we require."
"Also, the ability to customize the content to do what we need it to do is very powerful and very flexible for us."
"The endpoint protection is the solution's most valuable feature."
"I like the simplicity of this solution and the fact that it saves us time."
"The solution protects us so that we have regular security from attacks."
"The solution offers a ransomware vaccine which has been very beneficial to our organization."
"The solution has exchange protection. It has a content control, device control, a firewall, and anti-malware as well. They are all quite valuable features for us."
"I like the simplicity of this solution and the fact that it saves us time. The deployment was really straightforward and useful and I am impressed by the anti-virus endpoint detection and response offered by this solution."
 

Cons

"In the next release, I would like to see more UI improvements. Their UI is a bit basic. When we are speaking about Palo Alto Networks they are the big company, so they can improve the UI a little bit. The UI, the reports, the log system can all be improved."
"The GUI could be improved. It's a little bit cumbersome. It could be more user-friendly."
"A little bit more automation would be nice."
"In terms of areas of improvement, we have not completed our review of the product. We're also looking at other products. So, it's a little bit hard to tell what could be different because we have not completed the review of this product, but based on our experience so far, its implementation is quite complex."
"It is an enterprise-level solution. Its price could be less expensive."
"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."
"Impact on system performance is horrible, adding a lot of delays for users."
"For Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, if I had to point out improvements, I would say the UI is still somewhat difficult for beginners."
"I have concerns about BigFix's pricing, which I find to be slightly on the higher side."
"The main shortcoming of BigFix was integration with vulnerability management. If you had a vulnerability in your software and BigFix on the endpoint, you needed integration with Qualys, Tenable, or another vulnerability management solution to fix that. It was like, "Okay, we can identify issues, and get that information back from the endpoint, but what are we doing about it?""
"One aspect that could be improved is the speed of the console. Sometimes it can be slow, which is something that needs to be addressed."
"There is limited support or assistance when creating new deployment tasks."
"The reporting still needs improvement since customers want specific reporting, such as N-1 month patching reports."
"I self-taught for this online, so the initial setup was a little difficult to pick up at first. I had to create a couple of testing environments and destroy them in order to learn how to use it. There was a lot of trial and error, a lot of reading of the manuals."
"The solution should have some kind of a local caching methodology, where the patches can be taken locally into a localized relay server, and from there, the patch can be applied, so that there is not much usage of the network required."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"There are blurred lines between anti-virus and endpoint detection so I would say it can be confusing when you are considering buying this program. I would like to see that being explained better to the customer."
"There needs to be better integration with the environment. Especially, for the active directory and also for keeping up with the changes from Microsoft. We use a lot of Microsoft OS. I have noted that sometimes they lag behind Microsoft updates. For example, when with Windows 10. I had some issues with deploying to Windows 10 because the solution was behind in updating their own services to match the Microsoft release."
"Customer service needs a lot of improvement. They never replied or responded to our queries over the three years we've used it."
"The database needs improvement. It needs to be updated quite a bit."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price was fine."
"We didn't have to pay any additional fee for the cloud instance. It just came with the renewal, which was nice."
"Very costly product."
"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 cost of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is $55 to $90 USD per endpoint per month."
"We pay about $50,000 USD per year for a bundle that includes Cortex XDR."
"When we first bought it, it was a bit expensive, but it was worth it. The licensing was straightforward."
"The solution has one subscription for endpoint protection and one subscription for detection and response. The two licenses combined give you the BRO version."
"I can estimate the reduced cost of servers maintenance to approximatively $500,000."
"It is too costly. It is one of the best tools, but because of pricing, not all clients support it. Its licensing is on a yearly basis."
"Compliance, inventory, and licensing are really pricey. They should lower the price. It discourages users from getting onboard."
"The price of the solution is high. There are not any additional fees from the standard license."
"The cost is slightly high."
"The product is less costly when compared to other solutions, and this is a good solid solution for what we have paid."
"The tool's price continues to go up. The cost per endpoint can vary, ranging from approximately 30 to 80 dollars per year. Compared to other products, pricing is in the middle. You need to buy an additional database license, but most users already have it."
"It might be about $23 a client."
"There's a yearly cost for licensing. For us, that comes to $1,400. There are no additional costs beyond the license itself."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
14%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
6%
Construction Company
20%
Comms Service Provider
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business50
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise57
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise68
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. Sentinel One
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks. ...
Comparing CrowdStrike Falcon to Cortex XDR (Palo Alto)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions th...
How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface,...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BigFix?
I rate the price for BigFix as medium, neither low nor high.
What needs improvement with BigFix?
There is one feature in BigFix called the automation patch policy that requires enhancement. When an action is initia...
What is your primary use case for BigFix?
My current use case involves being one of the products and one of the clients implementing this tool.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
Tivoli Endpoint Manager
HVI
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
US Foods, Penn State, St Vincent's Health US Foods, Sabadell Bank, SunTrust, Australia Sydney, Stemac, Capgemini, WNS Global Services, Jebsen & Jessen, CenterBeam, Strauss, Christian Hospital Centre, Brit Insurance, Career Education Corporation
Kansas Development Finance Authority (KDFA), Quilvest
Find out what your peers are saying about BigFix vs. Bitdefender Hypervisor Introspection and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.