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

BigFix vs Stormshield Endpoint Security comparison

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
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
115
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)
24th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
100
Ranking in other categories
Configuration Management (10th), Patch Management (7th), Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) (10th), Autonomous Endpoint Management (5th)
Stormshield Endpoint Security
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
52nd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.9%, up from 3.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of BigFix is 1.7%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Stormshield Endpoint Security is 0.7%, up from 0.1% 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 Networks3.9%
BigFix1.7%
Stormshield Endpoint Security0.7%
Other93.7%
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.
it_user745593 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Project Manager, PMP at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
Protects the global station and has good stability
The feature I find most valuable is that it protects the global station The solution's integration with the Windows environment could be better. The solution needs better integration with products, if it did, it would have the assumption of better security. I've been using the solution since…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It detected stuff that other things wouldn't detect."
"The solution allows control over the user and his machine through Cortex XDR security policies."
"Cortex covers everything I need. It's a perfect solution. Cortex provides a different level of visibility because it's an extended EDR, allowing you to grab logs from the network and firewalls. Palo Alto invented the concept of the extended EDR or XDR."
"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."
"The most valuable features of this product are the management capabilities, which allow an IT organization to get quite a good picture of attempted cyber attacks, and its out-of-the-box investigation capabilities."
"Threat identification and detection are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It is a simple platform to use."
"The solution doesn't need a high level of technical training."
"The most valuable feature is the patching, as it's much more flexible than SCCM with better cross-platform support and more options for what we can do."
"Ability to run custom reports and custom relevance."
"The use of fast query has been extremely valuable providing insight in real time of the endpoints."
"Pre-packaged support for many third-party applications such as Adobe, Google, Mozilla, Sun (Java), WinZip, and others."
"If you are using BigFix and you have the client installed on every machine, you are nearly always audit-safe from out of the box."
"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 most valuable feature of BigFix is the software deployment."
"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."
"If you need a Windows based multi-functional end-point security solution then this product is for you."
"The feature I find most valuable is that it protects the global station."
"It is very good for preventing cryptolocker attacks."
 

Cons

"Impact on system performance is horrible, adding a lot of delays for users."
"It should support more mobile operating systems. That is one of the cons of their infrastructure right now."
"It's more focused on network communication. If a customer wants to increase the level of protection and start working with documents, it's impossible to integrate these features into the system. It's more of a communication-oriented system than a content security-oriented system."
"I would like to see improvement in the tool's user interface, particularly in the area of managing alerts and providing more reporting capabilities."
"While using Cortex, I noticed some aspects that could be improved, such as increasing the synchronization speed between XDR and Xnor."
"A potential area of improvement for Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is the cost."
"The downside to the solution is that there are a large number of false positives."
"The solution eats memory of the computer, unlike anything I've ever seen."
"There is one feature in BigFix called the automation patch policy that requires enhancement."
"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."
"Their technical support needs some improvement. We have had some cases where we didn't get enough support from the support team but I think it's improving now."
"I would like to see more integration with external data."
"The one feature that I would have like to see included (I know it is coming in the next release), is the block function of the newly announced BigFix Detect module."
"We need a much better multi-tenant option."
"BigFix could improve its asset management capabilities to discover assets, including hardware."
"The scalability of the web UI product doesn't scale to the size that we need for our implementation so it needs to expand."
"The solution's integration with the Windows environment could be better."
"Release speed for newer versions. When a new OS is released, you've got to wait half year to get the new version that covers the new Windows OS."
"Only Windows based. Dependence on MS updates and service start-up priority."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It has reasonable pricing for the use cases it provides to the company."
"It's the most expensive solution, but features-wise, it's quite strong. It's very good for protection, so the results are very good in the case of protection. I would rate it a two out of ten in terms of pricing."
"The pricing is okay, although direct support can be expensive."
"I don't like that they have different types of licenses."
"It has a yearly renewal."
"In terms of the cost Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is very expensive because we are a Mexican company and when you translate dollars to pesos the cost is very high. The solution is very expensive for Mexican companies. I understand that they have international prices, but I do not think it offsets the price enough for many companies in countries, such as Mexico. The amount it is reduced is not a massive percentage."
"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."
"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."
"The price of the solution is high. There are not any additional fees from the standard license."
"It might be about $23 a client."
"I can estimate the reduced cost of servers maintenance to approximatively $500,000."
"Its price is very reasonable."
"The price is very fair."
"The price is reasonable, but our customers find it expensive."
"There's not much big cost. We only have to pay the agents' cost for the server, and for the systems."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Construction Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
18%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business46
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise54
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
SkyRecon Systems StormShield Security Suite
 

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
Arkoon, Netasq
Find out what your peers are saying about BigFix vs. Stormshield Endpoint Security and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.