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

Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs ESET Inspect comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 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 Detection and Response (EDR)
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
122
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (4th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (3rd), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
Cybereason Endpoint Detecti...
Ranking in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
34th
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)
49th
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 November 2026, in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.8%, down from 3.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is 1.2%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ESET Inspect is 1.0%, down from 1.4% 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 Networks3.8%
Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response1.2%
ESET Inspect1.0%
Other94.0%
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.
reviewer2642739 - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Delivery Analyst at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
User-friendly platform and dashboards provide comprehensive insights
I would like to see improvements on the operational side, specifically in grouping. Currently, I can group sensors into a custom group and assign policies, but I feel it is a shame that I cannot create groups of groups with inheritance. This would be useful for organizing multiple sites or countries into a single group containing multiple sub-groups. Additionally, in the whitelisting case, if I want one policy to have specific whitelisting, but not all the machines in that policy to have it, I could use multiple groups belonging to the same parent group. It is a bit disappointing that whitelisting can only be done via policies and not for individual machines. If I need to whitelist for only one machine, I must create a specific policy. This poses a challenge with two thousand endpoints, making it nearly impossible to create two thousand different policies.
Cees Van Den Haak - PeerSpot reviewer
ICT Manager at Bouwbedrijf de Vries en Verburg BV
A product with an easy setup phase that helps manage attacks and vulnerabilities
The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that you can manage and react to vulnerabilities and attacks on all the workstations or laptops. You can put certain workstations and isolation. With ESET PROTECT, you see only one machine that is protected, but with ESET Inspect, you see all the machines that are protected in an environment.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product is mostly automated, and we do not have to make decisions, because all the decisions are made by the product itself and we are not required to create any custom policies since the policies that are created are well defined in the product itself."
"Overall, it's a great platform; it integrates very well with other solutions from Palo Alto and also with our vendors, the ease of use is excellent, I love the root cause analysis from Cortex, which is amazing, and in a few clicks you can have the full root cause."
"My advice for anybody who is considering Cortex XDR is that it is a complete solution, and has very good features."
"The tool's use cases are relevant to security."
"It detected stuff that other things wouldn't detect."
"The product's most valuable features are massive user and feature intelligence exploit detection."
"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."
"I don't have to do much monitoring with it; I don't have to have anybody manually looking at this, it gives us reports, and it lets us know if something needs to be addressed, and we can easily address it."
"The dashboard is very good and you can consider it as an interactive UI."
"Cybereason's threat hunting and investigation are the most valuable features. Threat hunting is a user-friendly feature that keeps you safe. Investigation offers an added value that I haven't seen with other EDR services. It allows you to find specific policy problems within your environment."
"We like that it is a hybrid; it’s flexible, you can really do whatever you need to do, the initial setup is not overly complicated, the solution can scale, and it is stable and reliable."
"In terms of pricing, it's a good solution."
"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."
"What I like most about Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is the support because the support is good. The solution is also easy to use, and it has a dashboard. Everything is good, and there's no problem with it."
"It has reduced the amount of time that we spend responding to threats by at least 50%."
"We are monitoring it by ourselves as well, however, their SOC team is monitoring and pre-alerting us all the time, every day."
"ESET Enterprise Inspector's most valuable feature is EDR."
"Scalability-wise, it is a very good solution."
"The product's most valuable features are its performance and stability."
"I find the multilayered endpoint security the most valuable feature."
"ESET Enterprise Inspector's greatest asset lies in its user-friendly interface, which allows for easy navigation and thorough analysis of incidents."
"The rules are the best and most useful features."
"This solution is easy to install, setup and monitor."
"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."
 

Cons

"In general, the price could be more competitive."
"There is also no recovery feature; if some endpoint is under attack there must be the possibility of recovering it or restoring it to a normal state."
"Initially, we got to have a lot of false positives when we onboarded, but nowadays it's quite smooth."
"It is a complex solution to implement."
"The tool needs to be improved in terms of integration and interface."
"When it comes to malware files, it should be a little quick because, at times, it would give a wrong result in the sense of what it might be on malware, even if it still might be a normal one."
"The deployment is pretty hard."
"In some cases, there are too many options for me, and it is a bit too hard to find some settings which I really need to implement."
"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."
"One area for improvement is that this solution isn't so easy for the end-user, especially at level 1."
"Linux was a bad experience and Micro OS was a disaster."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"There can be problems with the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). The reporting feature needs improvement."
"The network coverage becomes an issue most of the time."
"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."
"The deployment on individual endpoints is more geared toward larger organizations. It might prove to be a bit too complicated for a smaller organization. You need to know what you're doing when you're deploying the sensor."
"One area that needs improvement for the product is ransomware protection, which does not offer complete security."
"It may be difficult for a first-time customer to understand all of the functions that are available to him."
"The platform's price could be better."
"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 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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing seems fair, and I do like the licensing model. You use wherever they are, and it is elastic."
"The price was fine."
"It is present, but when compared to other competitive products, I would say it is not less expensive; however, when all of the other added values are considered, the price is reasonable."
"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 cost depends on your chosen license type, like Pro or other licenses."
"This is an expensive solution."
"The pricing is a little bit on the expensive side."
"The price of the product is not very economical."
"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."
"In terms of cost, this is a good choice for our needs."
"In terms of pricing, it's a good solution."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing an eight."
"Though it is not the cheapest solution but it fits our budget. We pay an annual licensing fee."
"This product is somewhat expensive and should be cheaper."
"The pricing is manageable."
"I do not have experience with the licensing of the product."
"I feel it is a very expensive product."
"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."
"The platform is expensive; it could be cheaper."
"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."
"The platform's licensing is affordable and straightforward."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing 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 Business5
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise12
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

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: September 2026.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.