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

BigFix vs Nyotron PARANOID 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)
Nyotron PARANOID
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
53rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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 Nyotron PARANOID is 0.7%, up from 0.2% 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%
Nyotron PARANOID0.7%
Other93.5%
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.
Abel Browarnik - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at Expertos Browarnik
A cost-effective security solution for endpoint protection
The initial setup is complex. It is rare to see an effective endpoint protection system that does not require some effort. It is neither on the cloud nor on-premises. You deploy it on every endpoint or server, irrespective of perimeter. You must use a deployment tool unless you prefer to do it manually on every endpoint or server. We used an automation tool to deploy it. Since we had MSI with us. We had to verify that everything worked, but it didn't take more than two weeks for 1000 endpoints.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The level of security I get for my endpoints and servers is extremely valuable."
"It's a nice product that's stable and scalable."
"We have a complete overview of all our PCs and it's very easy to handle and to use the interface. It has a lot of benefits for us."
"The one feature of Palo Alto Networks Traps that our organization finds most valuable is the App ID service."
"I generally believe that Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is probably the best in the market right now."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks has given us better endpoint visibility and richer investigation context, allowing us to identify suspicious activity, understand the attack path, and contain potential threats much faster than before."
"The good thing about the product is that it's always scanning."
"We've had a significant increase in blocking with a decrease in false positives, because it's looking at how the files work, not just a list of files that it's been told to look for."
"BigFix is easy to use."
"BigFix has always been easier to use when managing servers, especially when you deal with so many servers. We have 7,000. That's a lot of services to manage, and it's convenient to patch them all at once."
"The technical support for BigFix is really amazing."
"I like the inventory and life cycle management feature."
"It is a one-stop tool that allows you to do everything; it supports reporting, vulnerability management, patch management, and configuration, and all things can be done in one tool."
"Patch management, because it very much improved the patch compliance and has the capability to manage Windows and non-Windows clients."
"I would recommend this solution to others."
"It is a great product."
"This product really is the best solution for this security issue."
"Nyotron protects your users and does not acquire any threat intelligence."
"First of all, it does the job. It prevents harm to the operating system. Also, the visibility it gives to the user and to the administrator is very good."
 

Cons

"We would also like to have advanced tech protection and email scanning."
"The product's pricing needs improvement. They could provide more discounts. Additionally, the dashboard and control panel could be enhanced."
"I would like to see some additional features related to email protection included."
"A better pricing plan would make this product more competitive."
"The configuration could be simplified. I would like to see better protection, specifically to protect email applications."
"Dashboards do not allow everyone to see what's happening."
"The tool needs to be improved in terms of integration and interface."
"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."
"BigFix could improve its asset management capabilities to discover assets, including hardware."
"We would like to see more of the extended reporting feature."
"I'd like to see better API integration with BigFix. We have some tremendous API capability inside of CyFIR and the ability to take textual search results, for example, and bring that back into the BigFix dashboard. This would be of extreme interest to us and our customers."
"It can be improved speed-wise. They can make it a little bit light. If you do any query for servers in bulk, it can take some time. Similarly, creating a job can take some time."
"A major feature that I think they need to add to Detect is application whitelisting."
"I would like to see more integration with external data."
"The relevant language takes a little getting used to since it's not used anywhere else in the industry. It's just in the BigFix environment."
"A large infrastructure is required to implement BigFix for a medium-sized organization."
"The solution should be available on Linux and other platforms, including mobile platforms such as Android and iOS."
"The main feature that is missing is to have the same solution on servers. Currently it's only protecting the client side, not the server. If they would add the server in the same solution, that would be great."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If one wishes to work with another team or large number of users at a future point, he must purchase a license for them."
"It is cost-effective compared to similar solutions. It fits for the small businesses through to the big businesses."
"I am using the Community edition."
"It is "expensive" and flexible."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is an expensive solution."
"The cost depends on your chosen license type, like Pro or other licenses."
"The pricing seems fair, and I do like the licensing model. You use wherever they are, and it is elastic."
"The return on investment is from the user side because we have seen the performance of it increase the delivery time of the product if we are using too many web-based and on-premise applications. In indirect ways, we saw the return of investment in terms of performance and user satisfaction increase."
"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."
"There's not much big cost. We only have to pay the agents' cost for the server, and for the systems."
"It might be about $23 a client."
"When purchasing, buying with other IBM tools provided us with a very good discount in pricing."
"The cost is slightly high."
"So, the pricing is slightly more expensive than the others. I have to keep buying licenses every time I add a new device."
"The price is reasonable, but our customers find it expensive."
"I would stay with the Managed Virtual Server license model, which is a 1-to-1 license per OS whether it is virtual or physical."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 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%
No data available
 

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.
What needs improvement with Nyotron PARANOID?
There was an initial problem, we had to run the system in detection mode rather than prevention mode. The solution sh...
What is your primary use case for Nyotron PARANOID?
We use Nyotron PARANOID to protect endpoints. It serves as a second and last line of protection. It often detects thr...
What advice do you have for others considering Nyotron PARANOID?
They pushed updates frequently. Sometimes, an update breaks functionality, but it is easy to fix. It was an excellent...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
Tivoli Endpoint Manager
No data available
 

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
El Al Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about BigFix vs. Nyotron PARANOID and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.