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

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs Stormshield Endpoint Security 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
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
117
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (5th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (4th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
Deep Instinct Prevention Pl...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
27th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (18th)
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 Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is 1.1%, up from 0.7% 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%
Deep Instinct Prevention Platform1.1%
Stormshield Endpoint Security0.7%
Other94.3%
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.
Tom Foal - PeerSpot reviewer
CTO at Klaatu IT Security Ltd
Stops ransomware before it executes and reduces response time for the team
A potential area of improvement for Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is their focus on file uploads and large data storage, backups, and other related areas. It is difficult to think of what they could improve, but low information provided by the system when it detects something is one area, particularly in scripting. Deep Instinct Prevention Platform detects malicious scripts but it needs better measures, perhaps signing scripts, so we can be sure that a script is created by a client, not by some malware. It is really about helping us triage incidents effectively, so a bit more help with the analysis of incidents, particularly what the Deep Instinct Prevention Platform agent has discovered, would be beneficial. We need to know what it has spotted that makes it suspect malware.
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

"The most valuable features are incident creation, policy-based protection, IP whitelisting, and device encryption. These are beneficial for endpoint and server security."
"The solution allows us to make investigations. Other XDR solutions also provide similar capabilities but for investigation, Cortex XDR is better."
"We use Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks for its ability to detect based on behavior rather than simple virus scan to prevent malicious activities."
"Stability is one of the features we like the most."
"Cortex XDR's most valuable feature is its intelligence-based dashboards."
"After installing this solution, it identified, blocked, and provided the complete attack chain, which was very helpful."
"Its interface and pricing are most valuable, and it is better than other vendors in terms of security."
"The integrations are out-of-the-box, as are the playbooks."
"The most important thing is that it is for prevention. It prevents attacks of any type of malware. Normally, what we've seen in other products is that they are not for prevention. They isolate a possible threat that they don't understand or know about, and then they check it with our database to see if it needs any correction or elimination. This means that the threat is already inside a customer's base, whereas Deep Instinct prevents a threat from getting in. Prevention is basically done by an agent in each installation, PCU, or product. An agent has its own intelligence to be able to detect if it should stop a threat or not. It has been taught. It is like a brain that has been taught to react according to any possible threat. Deep Instinct is very light. It doesn't take too much CPU attention or memory. It doesn't slow down the performance. You don't really realize any change in the performance, which makes it very different from other solutions. They are usually heavy for the users."
"Deep Instinct has helped us to be a lot more proactive on the security front, rather than reactive, saving us a lot of time in incident response and significantly reducing our SOC’s endpoint protection management time and false positives."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"It's just a single agent that has everything in it... With the EDR solutions, you have to install it, then you have another service history installed, and you have behavioral analytics, etc. With this, everything is in a single small "box," a small agent that has pretty much got everything."
"I really like the behavioral analysis feature, because it looks at all the different things, like arbitrary shellcode and reflective DLL. It looks at a lot of things that threat actors use as threat vectors to get into the environment."
"Deep Instinct was a strategic complement to our Open XDR platform."
"It has a very low false-positive ratio. That is important because it means we're not wasting time... We're able to run that entire 20,000-endpoint base with just a handful of engineers."
"The support is very good. They reply and respond very quickly."
"It is very good for preventing cryptolocker attacks."
"The feature I find most valuable is that it protects the global station."
"If you need a Windows based multi-functional end-point security solution then this product is for you."
 

Cons

"Currently, we are monitoring all USB drives and ports but we would like to improve our device control capabilities."
"Although I would say this product is highly-rated, it could probably do more because nothing does everything that you want."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is not only pricey; it is extremely expensive."
"Being able to filter the events to see those that are related to the actual alert would save time spent by the engineer."
"The MAC agent is not as robust feature-wise as the PC version."
"The technical support is not very good. I find the process difficult."
"It takes time to scan the servers and devices."
"The solution could improve by providing better integration with their own products and others."
"There's an issue in the installation process where you can't install it unless you disable the built-in Windows Bitdefender antivirus. So, you have to manually disable Microsoft Bitdefender in order to install Deep Instinct. So, that makes it impossible to do a network rollout unless you manually visit each computer, which is ridiculous."
"I am looking forward to them adding Linux in Q1 or Q2 of 2019, as this is often requested by my partners and customers. Currently, Deep Instinct only has Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS."
"The Deep Instinct client stops working when you have two servers and you add high availability or Windows Failover Cluster mode. It doesn't work in a clustered mode. I haven't yet had time to go back and talk with their support and get it fixed. It would be good if they can make the installation independent of an actual user. Currently, its installation is dependent on the actual user being logged in. For example, a computer has to be logged in for the installation to happen. If it is not logged in, then on the cloud platform, it is going to show that the client is offline. On the management side of the cloud platform, we would like to have the administrators segregated by logical entities. We have told them that on their cloud management platform, we would like to be able to segregate clients into different logical entities or organizations so that the administrators are able to manage only those entities that are within their designated organization."
"If they can bring some additional, complementary solutions, like network scanning and the like, that will help. If they had some sort of a firewall which could help detect DDoS attacks and other things, it would be an improvement"
"The Management Console is not localized."
"Pricing is also an issue. Its pricing is not as aggressive as it could be, and its price makes it difficult to sell."
"The Achilles heel in our industry is reporting. I would love to see exceptional, outstanding level of reporting."
"Some of the features are very resource intensive, such as the ransomware detection. It consumed so much of the resource on the endpoints that we have disabled those functions."
"The solution's integration with the Windows environment could be better."
"Only Windows based. Dependence on MS updates and service start-up priority."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"It's way too expensive, but security is expensive. You pay for your licensing, and then you pay for someone to monitor the stuff."
"It has reasonable pricing for the use cases it provides to the company."
"The cost depends on your chosen license type, like Pro or other licenses."
"It is "expensive" and flexible."
"It has a yearly renewal."
"Our license will require renewal in August, after which the maintenance will continue as usual."
"Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription. This is attributed to OPEX savings, as security teams spent less time trying to identify and isolate malware for analysis as a result of a reduction in malware incidents, false positives, and breach avoidance."
"There are no additional costs on the price, and our company has a support contract, which bundles in those services anyway."
"There is a need for customers of the product to pay towards the licensing costs of the tool."
"Its pricing is too high, but that is not because of the product. It is expensive because of the cost of the console. You need a console to control the whole thing, but the console is expensive. You have to split this cost among all possible users. Normally, to be able to make it economically attractive, you need at least 1,000 agents, PCs, or users. If you have a customer with 300 to 500 agents, PCs, or users, it becomes too pricey."
"The pricing is a little bit expensive but we are satisfied with DI's performance."
"One thing about their licensing program that I like is that just one covers the server as well as on the endpoint as well as mobile devices. There is no complexity in calculating how many SKUs I need for mobile, for laptop, for desktop, and for servers. It's very simple and that makes it much easier to budget."
"If I include the false positive rate and the detection rate in the comparison, Deep Instinct is worth its price."
"Pricing and licensing are very straightforward. It's two SKUs, one is for the console and the other is for the client."
"Their pricing is very competitive. It is good, fair, and a lot cheaper than what we were doing with Cylance."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
911,493 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
12%
Construction Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
13%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
18%
Construction Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business47
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise54
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise5
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 Deep Instinct?
The price for Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is reasonable. It is about the same price as any other antivirus.
What needs improvement with Deep Instinct?
A potential area of improvement for Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is their focus on file uploads and large data s...
What is your primary use case for Deep Instinct?
Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is basically a stopper that prevents any malware, including zero-days. The main ben...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
No data available
SkyRecon Systems StormShield Security Suite
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Information Not Available
Arkoon, Netasq
Find out what your peers are saying about Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs. Stormshield Endpoint Security and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
911,493 professionals have used our research since 2012.