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

BigFix vs OpenText Core Endpoint Protection​ comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
118
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (5th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (4th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
BigFix
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
23rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
100
Ranking in other categories
Configuration Management (9th), Patch Management (8th), Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) (11th), Autonomous Endpoint Management (6th)
OpenText Core Endpoint Prot...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
34th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.8%, up from 3.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of BigFix is 1.8%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Endpoint Protection​ is 1.8%, up from 0.8% 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%
BigFix1.8%
OpenText Core Endpoint Protection​1.8%
Other92.6%
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.
reviewer2584380 - PeerSpot reviewer
vCIO At Grove Networks Inc. at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Improving threat detection is critical for enhanced protection
We use Webroot Business Endpoint Protection as a NextGen antivirus solution for our clients. It's included in the contract we have with our clients as a cost-effective option for antivirus protection Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is cost-effective for rolling it out to all of our clients,…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We can visualize and control the activities in the environment from anywhere."
"The solution doesn't need a high level of technical training."
"We can use Cortex XDR to get the entire graph of the incidents from source to destination, and we can take remedial action."
"Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks has accelerated the response time for my security team, so we have been able to resolve issues faster than usual."
"After deploying Traps, we saw the performance of the network improve by 65 to 70 percent."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to rapidly detect certain hardware files."
"Palo Alto is constantly adding new features."
"Definitely, without any hesitation, I would recommend that you should implement and use it."
"I would recommend this solution to others."
"We've been able to fully automate our TWS installs, to the point where a user requests it and we don't do anything."
"BigFix is value for money - You get a simple, robust, dynamic and very powerful solution for a very reasonable price."
"Using BigFix and the automation we built we've been able to reduce patch time from three hours and 37 minutes on average to less than twenty minutes per server."
"It has plugins development options, which are great."
"We've actually fixed the patching by improving our patch application by almost 60%."
"We are able to decrease the number of high and critical vulnerabilities by at least 30% in six months, which is a huge improvement and makes the environment more secure."
"It is excellent endpoint protection for mobiles that does everything it says it will."
"I rate the initial setup phase a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy."
"Auto-Remediation"
"I haven't observed any of the instabilities in the solution. It is a stable solution."
"The main reason we had Webroot is that it was cost-effective for our clients."
"Low performance requirements."
"I like that Webroot is very lightweight. It didn't bog down the machine, and more importantly, it had heuristics artificial intelligence to some degree. It wasn't like full-blown artificial intelligence, but something where you have one endpoint recognizing issues because it maintains a cloud database. If one client recognizes a threat, it would add it to the database, and almost immediately, every agent in the world would also know about that threat. That was very appealing to us. However, now it's becoming commonplace, whereas ventures like Symantec and McAfee were based more on the traditional model of definition and updates, and we were always falling behind. Webroot also has pretty good technical support."
"It is an easy-to-use and easy-to-configure product."
 

Cons

"However, if you do not have Palo Alto in your environment, you are paying these additional services just for Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, so it is not a cost-effective solution."
"They've been having some issues with updating their endpoint agents, and it has been quite frustrating."
"While using Cortex, I noticed some aspects that could be improved, such as increasing the synchronization speed between XDR and Xnor."
"Cortex XDR is trickier to configure than other Palo Alto products. This is one area where we are not so satisfied."
"We had a problem with getting our older endpoints up to date, but their newest updates have been really good. I've been pleased with it in terms of what our needs are. It's doing what we want it to do."
"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."
"It would be better if they could educate the customers more. Some sort of seminars and roadshows will help educate the customers and show what the product can do. The price could be better. It would also help if they had a team for deployment and support."
"When it comes to core analysis, and security analysis, Cortex needs to provide more information."
"I would like to see a web UI SDK so we could take what is provided currently and be able to build our own customized web UI for particular customers that want to sell service."
"I would like to see more integration with external data."
"The main shortcoming of BigFix was integration with vulnerability management."
"BigFix could improve its asset management capabilities to discover assets, including hardware."
"The product should become cloud-based. Also, the peer nesting ability of the product is a little backward."
"The tool should be more friendly in terms of Web UI and should be having better vulnerability scanning mechanisms so a third-party application is not required to fulfill that aspect."
"We have had scalability issues because we bend the laws of the physics for the tool."
"Needs to improve Network Access Protection (NAP) technologies to prevent computers with vulnerabilities from gaining access to networks."
"The console spins up relatively slowly, and some of the configuration items are obscure (e.g., reporting back one time per day is a default setting) and need to be tweaked."
"Usually, when it comes to reliability, McAfee and Norton are at 99 percent. Webroot's percentage is lower."
"Their customer support should be better. We started having some issues with it, and we didn't get the required support."
"They should provide more information on the type of cyber attacks."
"Unified threat management (UTM) integration."
"Its detection capability for certain attacks should be improved. It should have better and wider detection for certain malware attacks. It could also have some sort of RMN."
"The platform is mostly stable, however there are hiccups with the cloud from time-to-time that impact the ability to get to the portal."
"We need more control over when upgrades to the app are rolled out."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"When we first bought it, it was a bit expensive, but it was worth it. The licensing was straightforward."
"The price of the solution is high for the license and in general."
"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."
"Compared to CrowdStrike, Cortex XDR is an expensive solution."
"It has reasonable pricing for the use cases it provides to the company."
"Licensing for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR can be costly, especially when it comes to a hundred users. A license is required for each user, and the subscription must be renewed on a yearly basis."
"This is an expensive solution."
"The pricing is okay, although direct support can be expensive."
"It might be about $23 a client."
"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."
"Its price is very reasonable."
"The price of BigFix is better than the solutions. You are able to pay monthly or annually. There are not any hidden costs with BigFix. There is an additional cost for the SQL database."
"You are charged per server and per workstation when using BigFix. ManageEngine is a lot cheaper than BigFix. There are some additional costs, such as support."
"The license is subscription-based."
"The price is reasonable, but our customers find it expensive."
"So, the pricing is slightly more expensive than the others. I have to keep buying licenses every time I add a new device."
"The solution is very cost-effective."
"Its cost is not much per month. Our price is a couple of bucks a user."
"Webroot is less expensive than SentinelOne."
"From a pricing standpoint, I would rate it a four out of five."
"I rate the product's pricing a three on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. There are no costs in addition to the product's standard licensing fees."
"With Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, I can select a yearly billing cycle."
"It is relatively cheap."
"If you purchase for clients, then you are the managing billing entity. It's better to either get a monthly subscription check from your clients, or to prepay for the year (so as to not keep cash in reserve to pay the bill each month) IMHO."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Construction Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
6%
Construction Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business47
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise55
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise68
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business35
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise2
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is probably on the cheaper side, so I would rate their pricing a one or a two ou...
What needs improvement with Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
Webroot Business Endpoint Protection needs to improve its ability to detect threats. It does not do what it's adverti...
What is your primary use case for Webroot Business Endpoint Protection?
We use Webroot Business Endpoint Protection as a NextGen antivirus solution for our clients. It's included in the con...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
Tivoli Endpoint Manager
Webroot SecureAnywhere Business Endpoint Protection
 

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
Mytech Partners
Find out what your peers are saying about BigFix vs. OpenText Core Endpoint Protection​ and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.