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

Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs ESET Inspect 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 Detection and Response (EDR)
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
110
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (4th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (5th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
Cybereason Endpoint Detecti...
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
29th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (36th)
ESET Inspect
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
33rd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.4%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is 1.2%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ESET Inspect is 1.1%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks3.4%
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response1.2%
ESET Inspect1.1%
Other94.3%
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
 

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.
Ivan Burke - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Research Development and Innovation at CSIR
Offers useful threat hunting and response capabilities but struggles to justify cost for smaller deployments
I mostly work with incident response, so I work with a bunch of them interchangeably, but mostly with the EDR components; I also get involved with some of the XDR components, especially for the cloud. Regarding analysis features, such as deep behavioral detection, I do use it sometimes; I usually don't use the automated version of it, as I prefer threat hunting directly, depending on if the season is available. I know some of them have pretty good analytics engines, but I tend to do the threat hunting on my own. I manage incident response for a bunch of companies, so some of them have Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response integrated into Sentinel, some into Fortinet, and others into various tools. When considering cost-effectiveness, their pricing structure works such that if you're a large organization with more than a thousand endpoints to deploy to, then Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is worthwhile. But for anything less than 300, it's too expensive; obviously, the more you buy, the better the price, making it cheaper for you. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response best fits enterprise-level businesses such as huge corporations; however, we are in the process of removing it from many of our endpoint clients because it's not really showing enough value for them at the moment. We're trying to see how we can improve it with some of our clients, but at the moment, it's struggling compared to other EDR solutions that we have deployed. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response a six.
Moshiur-Rahman Khan - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at IOPoint.com
Provides reliable and comprehensive internet security solutions without significant system slowdowns
My organization uses ESET Inspect for antivirus and internet security on laptops and desktops. On the enterprise side, we utilize it on our Windows Server.  The platform has improved our organization's security by providing comprehensive antivirus and internet security solutions. It is fast and…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The stability of this product is very good."
"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 user interface of the solution is sophisticated and straightforward."
"Its interface and pricing are most valuable, and it is better than other vendors in terms of security."
"The dashboard is customizable."
"WildFire AI is the best option for this product."
"The initial setup isn't too bad."
"The positive impacts I see from Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks include a complete 360-degree view of our security posture altogether, being a uniform platform where we are ingesting logs from multiple resources."
"The initial setup was easy and straightforward."
"In terms of pricing, it's a good solution."
"I highly recommend this solution for any organization that is solely depending on normal AV."
"Cybereason has given me more coverage across more operating systems than what I have had in the past; I have more visibility now into a lot more areas."
"The solution is efficient."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"Cybereason absolutely enables us to mitigate and isolate on the fly. Our managed detection response telemetry has dropped dramatically since we began using it. It's very top-of-mind. We were running some tabletop exercises and none of the detections were getting triggered by the managed security services provider. So we needed to find a solution that would trigger high-fidelity alerts. That was Cybereason and it dramatically changed our landscape from the detection and response perspective."
"Immediately we can pick up the computers in the network if any malicious operation that is triggered."
"The rules are the best and most useful features."
"Scalability-wise, it is a very good solution."
"Rules are the most valuable feature of ESET Inspect. They are created through XML language, and they track and filter events from endpoints. If the event matches the rule, the rule is triggered. Exceptions are the second most valuable feature because it gives you the power to filter false positives in large numbers. The third most valuable feature is the Learning mode that facilitates making exceptions for known processes with a good reputation."
"I find the multilayered endpoint security the most valuable feature."
"ESET Enterprise Inspector's most valuable feature is EDR."
"ESET Enterprise Inspector's greatest asset lies in its user-friendly interface, which allows for easy navigation and thorough analysis of incidents."
"The product's most valuable features are its performance and stability."
"This solution is easy to install, setup and monitor."
 

Cons

"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."
"Cortex does not offer an on-premises solution. However, some customers would prefer not to be on the cloud. It would be ideal if it could offer something on-prem as well."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks can improve mobile integration to allow access to the console."
"To jump from the partner to Palo Alto directly was challenging."
"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."
"It is an enterprise-level solution. Its price could be less expensive."
"A better pricing plan would make this product more competitive."
"The downsides of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks are that in many incidents, when I enter the causality chain, there are numerous logs."
"Ad hoc higher-level reporting to senior management can be improved or can be implemented. That's definitely an area of improvement that they need to focus on."
"Compared to our previous endpoint, we have a lot more false positives and a lot more duplication of alerts, so we're chasing more alerts."
"Its Microsoft PowerShell protections still need some compatibility improvements."
"While the product is very good, there are still some areas for improvement. The initial triage area could be a bit simpler. They get into the weeds real fast; it gets very detailed very fast. I am still looking for an easier triage layer on top with the ability to dig deeper."
"There can be problems with the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). The reporting feature needs improvement."
"What needs to improve in Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and what I'd like to see in its next release is a centralized dashboard that allows you to view what is there, similar to what's on Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager: a beautiful display and reporting. Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response has to start with the compliance, the homepage, etc. Everything should be there and should be customizable. The options should be there. The tool is very good currently, but visibility for IT administrators is lacking and needs to be worked on."
"The network coverage becomes an issue most of the time."
"They need to improve their technical support services."
"One area that needs improvement for the product is ransomware protection, which does not offer complete security."
"It is not a stable product. We were disappointed in the stability of this product in comparison to McAffee."
"Every vendor is working on making the job of SOC analysts easier, with fewer false positives and more precise detections. ESET uses LiveGrid technology that provides feedback on the reputation of files and operations. It's hard to eliminate all of the false positives, but hopefully, we'll see some improvement with the advances in AI."
"The platform's price could be better."
"The product is complex to configure, and there are too many errors that are not errors, making it an area that can be considered for improvement."
"The solution could improve the consumption of resources. The RAM and CPU usage increases during usage which can cause issues. We have three separate services and it would be beneficial if all were executed from one agent limiting the over usage of system resources."
"It may be difficult for a first-time customer to understand all of the functions that are available to him."
"It is not a stable product. We were disappointed in the stability of this product in comparison to McAffee."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay about $50,000 USD per year for a bundle that includes Cortex XDR."
"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."
"It has a higher cost than other solutions, like CrowdStrike or Microsoft’s EDR tools, but it reduces the cost of our operations because it’s a new generation antivirus tool."
"The pricing is a little bit on the expensive side."
"I don't like that they have different types of licenses."
"Our customers have expressed that the price is high."
"It has a yearly renewal."
"When we first bought it, it was a bit expensive, but it was worth it. The licensing was straightforward."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing an eight."
"In terms of pricing, it's a good solution."
"This product is somewhat expensive and should be cheaper."
"In terms of cost, this is a good choice for our needs."
"I do not have experience with the licensing of the product."
"We considered a few other solutions. Some were ridiculously overpriced, while others didn't have solutions for Mac endpoints. That was a deal-breaker because most of our organization is on Mac. It came down to two vendors: Cybereason and another. They had similar pitches and almost identical approaches, but in the end, Cybereason gave us the best value for our money."
"I had to go through a third-party to purchase it, which I wasn't really pleased about."
"Though it is not the cheapest solution but it fits our budget. We pay an annual licensing fee."
"The platform's licensing is affordable and straightforward."
"The platform is expensive; it could be cheaper."
"I feel it is a very expensive product."
"The pricing and licensing are the big issue now, in my opinion. If the price was less than other companies, or a one-time charge for service was available, I think there would be more users of this solution."
"This is true in the case of licensing, we do not have the most expensive products, and we don't have the cheapest product, it's somewhere in the middle. Perhaps a little higher from the middle, but we are known for what we provide to our customers, and they are pleased."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

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

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business45
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise48
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
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 primary use case for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response?
My main use case for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is mostly for incident response.
What needs improvement with Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response?
When it comes to advanced threats, it sometimes helps me with finding them and hunting them down with threat detectio...
What advice do you have for others considering Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response?
I mostly work with incident response, so I work with a bunch of them interchangeably, but mostly with the EDR compone...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ESET Inspect?
The platform's licensing is affordable and straightforward. We purchase soft keys, install them, and manage the licen...
What needs improvement with ESET Inspect?
One area that needs improvement for the product is ransomware protection, which does not offer complete security.
What is your primary use case for ESET Inspect?
My organization uses ESET Inspect for antivirus and internet security on laptops and desktops. On the enterprise side...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
Cybereason EDR, Cybereason Deep Detect & Respond
ESET Enterprise Inspector
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Lockheed Martin, Spark Capital, DocuSign, Softbank Capital
Mitsubishi Motors, Allianz Suisse, Cannon, T-Mobile
Find out what your peers are saying about Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. ESET Inspect and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.