Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs OpenText Core Endpoint Protection comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Microsoft and OpenText are both solutions in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category. Microsoft is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.4, while OpenText is ranked #32. Microsoft holds a 6.4% mindshare in EPP, compared to OpenText’s 1.9% mindshare. Additionally, 95% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

OpenText Core Endpoint Protection and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint compete in the comprehensive security solutions category. Microsoft Defender appears to have the upper hand due to its seamless integration within Windows environments, advanced threat detection, and response capabilities, making it particularly advantageous for organizations heavily using Microsoft services.

Features: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint provides seamless integration with Windows environments, robust threat detection, and automatic attack disruption. Its advanced response capabilities and detailed threat analytics are beneficial in maintaining security. On the other hand, OpenText Core Endpoint Protection focuses on delivering solid protection, although its integration and feature set may not be as extensive as Microsoft's offering.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Core Endpoint Protection could improve its handling of threats like CryptoLock and enhance its reporting capabilities, which often lack detail. Meanwhile, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can work on simplifying its user interface, enhancing reporting capabilities, and reducing false positives. Both products should focus on improving threat detection accuracy and minimizing performance impacts.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Core Endpoint Protection provides flexible deployment options across public, hybrid, and on-premises environments, but faces criticism on customer service wait times. Microsoft's Defender for Endpoint, widely deployable across hybrid and cloud environments, offers versatility and significant integration advantages for Microsoft service users. However, its extensive support options can also result in response delays.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText is recognized for its affordability, appealing to companies seeking cost-effective endpoint solutions. Although Microsoft Defender for Endpoint may appear expensive initially, when combined with broader enterprise licenses, it becomes cost-effective by offering extensive features and integration benefits. Both products deliver ROI, with Defender's value becoming more evident when leveraging Microsoft's comprehensive suite.

To learn more, read our detailed Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. OpenText Core Endpoint Protection Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. OpenText Core Endpoint Protection

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 920,929 peers since 2012

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...

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.8%, up from 3.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is 6.4%, down from 9.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Endpoint Protection is 1.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint	6.4%
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks	3.8%
OpenText Core Endpoint Protection	1.9%
Other	87.9%

Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)

Featured Reviews

ABHISHEK_SINGH

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.

Read full review

Robert Arbuckle

Security Analyst III at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees

Automatically isolates threats and integrates with logging to reduce response time

Overall, I would evaluate the Microsoft support level that I receive at probably about a seven, but that depends on the day. It has been spotty. We have had issues where the urgency level of the Microsoft support is not as high as ours, especially during a data breach or potential data breach situation. We have had issues with some of the offshore support being lackluster. One specific thing that comes to mind is we were on a support call with our CISO on the call, and the Microsoft agent, who did not actually work for Microsoft, is one of the vendors that Microsoft uses for support, said, "Just to set expectations, my lunch break is in an hour and I am going to go away then." For us, it was already ten o'clock at night and we had been working on this for a couple of hours, trying to get a security engineer on with us. For him to tell us that he was going to go away and have lunch, it was, "Okay, but go find somebody else if you need to." It was just the lackluster approach, and it seemed like he did not really care. We seem to get a lot of this when we get non-Microsoft support. I can identify areas for improvement with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, as it is kind of a convoluted mess to try to take care of false positives. Especially when they have been identified as false positives but they keep going off over and over again. It is great for my pocketbook because it generates a lot of on-call action, but I would really prefer more sleep at two o'clock in the morning than dealing with false positives. I would say that the unified portal for managing Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is suitable for both teams as they are all in there. It would be great if they would stop moving things around and renaming things, which makes sense. The new XDR portal is pretty nice. Being able to have it central again inside of the regular Security Center without having to open up two windows is helpful. Overall, I think it is pretty good. There is always going to be something that could be improved, such as alerting and the ability to modify alerts would be a little bit helpful to have. Being able to add more data into the alerts and turn off alerts that are not as useful would be beneficial. It is hard to say what the quantitative impact the security exposure management feature has had on our company's security, because a lot of it is kind of subjective. I think we are sitting at around a fifty percent score still, and a lot of it is just kind of unusual circumstances that we cannot really implement without breaking the organization.

Read full review

reviewer2584380

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,…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Everything is organized straightforwardly; all the incidents are clearly described and everything you need is essentially in one menu and one UI interface, which is quite beneficial for me and also for the customer."

"Cortex XDR is a simple platform that's easy for administrators and users. You have a lot of flexibility to change or customize the features."

"The scalability of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is very good."

"The behavior-based detection feature is valuable."

"The solution allows control over the user and his machine through Cortex XDR security policies."

"Cortex XDR is stable, offering high quality and reliable performance."

"It is easy to use."

"One of the things that I enjoy the most is using policy extensions. It's like having host firewalls to control USB connections. I think it's a wonderful tool to restrict use when connecting to our computers. Another important tool is Home Insights. That is an add-on to the Cortex solution. I like that because we can see all the vulnerabilities in the environment and control what assets are connected to our network."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks pros

"Real-time detection and cloud-based delivery of detections are highly efficient."

"It's really stable. I've used a lot of stuff, a lot of products, like ESET and Kaspersky. None of them are comparable with this one. This one is much better."

"Technical support is good."

"There are some competitive products on the market, but the best is Microsoft Defender because it's very easy to integrate. That's one reason a lot of clients want Microsoft Defender. It's also very easy to implement compared to other solutions."

"The integration of Defender, Security Center, and the Microsoft compliance score, is the feature we use most to share the results with our clients and to create a roadmap together."

"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is extremely stable."

"It's very reliable and very dependable."

"I have used it enough to be sure that I could recommend it for home use on a PC."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint pros

"The initial setup was straightforward. It took five minutes. I installed the solution myself."

"The ability to generate profiles specific to both business groups and organizations has made managing nearly 1000 endpoints very simple."

"The most valuable aspect of Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is that I have never gotten malware with it."

"The solution is very simple and straightforward to use."

"Doesn't consume resources or affect the computer performance at all."

"The solution has many features. It is very easy to define and set the policies based on the user groups, it does not take up a lot of resources in operation, and has provided us with a good track record of protection."

"Customer Service: Top-of-the-line; the busy community as well. Technical Support: Top-of-the-line; the busy community as well."

"My advice about this product is that it is a very good solution and offers a stable and trusted software that runs smoothly and is easy to deploy."

More OpenText Core Endpoint Protection pros

Cons

"If Palo Alto reduces the pricing slightly for their products, it would make them more scalable in markets such as India and globally for cybersecurity."

"It is not easy to sell Cortex XDR, not because it isn't a good tool. Its marketing needs to be improved."

"Being able to filter the events to see those that are related to the actual alert would save time spent by the engineer."

"I feel that it should not be a licensed activity because a feature should allow us to see applications running on end devices."

"The server sometimes stops continuously to check things so it would be helpful to receive access updates or technical reasons."

"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve its user interface, which is more complicated compared to competitors such as SentinelOne."

"The price could be a little lower."

"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."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks cons

"The UI for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint needs to be better."

"I would like to see integrations with other products, such as Spunk and other CM solutions. That would create possibilities for me, and for a SOC, to consolidate all events in an older console, not one provided by Microsoft but provided by a third party, and use it to create more insights."

"Localization is always a challenge, especially with new products you typically want. Solutions are designed to be deployed where the most licenses are being consumed, such as in the United States. They focus on US products, devices, and networks. Specialized deployments for other countries would allow for a smoother experience in transition."

"Where we stand right now, compared to other products that are there in the market, they still have to work on their threat intelligence and the overall maturity of detecting the malware."

"It needs to improve the cybersecurity for lateral movements. For example, when a hacker tries to enter a machine, they try to get the password by doing a lateral movement."

"The time it takes to restore the application could be improved. It has a lot of dependencies. It's not like the Microsoft security that comes with the OS. Updating through the command prompt, most of the time, it takes some time to download some of these dependencies."

"What I think can be improved on Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is that the whitelisting abilities are pitiful, and the understanding of how you go about doing that by the support techs that you speak with is really bad, so that I think is an area where Microsoft Defender for Endpoint needs improvement; the understanding and support of that and what actually works is pretty buggy."

"It takes some time to understand how this solution works. A few things are unclear at the beginning, such as whether it actually restricts the virus or spam at the initial stage, or when there is a security update, how will we come to know and how will it get synchronized."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint cons

"It doesn't do anything proactive. The virus has to hit the machine before it detects it."

"I did notice that my OS slowed down, but I don't know if that's due to Webroot."

"One of the biggest pain points is that it's not really ransomware-oriented. They will be able to catch some, but that's where Sentinel One is a better player compared to Webroot."

"The reporting is the weakest part of the Webroot console. Frequently, I export to Excel to massage something into it to pass on to others."

"It would be nice if it had a feature for automatically generating reports on the client end for device status, security status and backup information."

"It needs to improve the problems with the faster connection, and have a huge reduction in false positives."

"This product has room for improvement to display a more detailed representation of the problem when a virus is or isn't stopped."

"We need to have a stronger defense against CryptoLock and other attackers."

More OpenText Core Endpoint Protection cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"We pay about $50,000 USD per year for a bundle that includes Cortex XDR."

"Cortex XDR’s pricing is very reasonable."

"The cost depends on your chosen license type, like Pro or other licenses."

"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 way too expensive, but security is expensive. You pay for your licensing, and then you pay for someone to monitor the stuff."

"Its pricing is kind of in line with its competitors and everybody else out there."

"I feel it is fairly priced."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks pricing and cost advice

"Licensing models of Microsoft are renowned for being complex. We just purchased the whole E5 stack. With E5 licenses for users, we get access to a bunch of features that are not just related to security. I would rate them a three out of five in terms of pricing."

"For me, the pricing is very good, but for management it's very expensive. Other solutions are less expensive. But when I present all the information and all the reports they say, "Well, it's expensive, but the cost-benefit is very good.""

"The normal, standalone model, is not expensive, but the enterprise model that includes the bundle with email and some web protection, is a bit more expensive."

"Microsoft Defender ATP is expensive."

"The solution is free."

"The solution is an open source version and was free with a paid version of Windows 10."

"We sell this product as part of Office 365 and it is not expensive."

"You do not need to pay any additional costs for antivirus and anti-malware solutions for endpoint protection."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint pricing and cost advice

"The solution is very cost-effective."

"Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is not too expensive. My licenses cost me between $300 and $400. It is really good price wise."

"With Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, I can select a yearly billing cycle."

"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."

"Get a trial, then a multi-year license."

"From a pricing standpoint, I would rate it a four out of five."

"Webroot is less expensive than SentinelOne."

"Its cost is not much per month. Our price is a couple of bucks a user."

More OpenText Core Endpoint Protection pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

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%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Outsourcing Company

Construction Company

11%

Outsourcing Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

10%

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	50
Midsize Enterprise	21
Large Enterprise	57

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	82
Midsize Enterprise	44
Large Enterprise	97

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	35
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	2

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. ...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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,...

See all answers

Which offers better endpoint security - Symantec or Microsoft Defender?

We use Symantec because we do not use MS Enterprise products, but in my opinion, Microsoft Defender is a superior sol...

See all answers

How does Microsoft Defender for Endpoint compare with Crowdstrike Falcon?

The CrowdStrike solution delivers a lot of information about incidents. It has a very light sensor that will never pu...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint?

We have been discussing pricing, setup cost, and licensing, and we are currently on an E3. We are discussing going to...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

SentinelOne Singularity Endpoint vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 5% of the time

CrowdStrike Falcon vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 4% of the time

Symantec Endpoint Security vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 3% of the time

Cortex XSIAM vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 3% of the time

Trellix Endpoint Security Platform vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 3% of the time

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Competitors

CrowdStrike Falcon vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 3% of the time

Symantec Endpoint Security vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 3% of the time

SentinelOne Singularity Endpoint vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 3% of the time

HP Wolf Security vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 2% of the time

Tanium vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 2% of the time

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Competitors

Symantec Endpoint Security vs OpenText Core Endpoint Protection

Compared 5% of the time

SentinelOne Singularity Endpoint vs OpenText Core Endpoint Protection

Compared 4% of the time

Huntress Managed EDR vs OpenText Core Endpoint Protection

Compared 3% of the time

CrowdStrike Falcon vs OpenText Core Endpoint Protection

Compared 3% of the time

HP Wolf Security vs OpenText Core Endpoint Protection

Compared 1% of the time

More OpenText Core Endpoint Protection Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

November 2026

Download Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks product report

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

October 2026

Download Microsoft Defender for Endpoint product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Core Endpoint Protection

October 2026

OpenText Core Endpoint Protection report

Download OpenText Core Endpoint Protection product report

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps

Microsoft Defender ATP, Microsoft Defender Advanced Threat Protection, MS Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Defender Antivirus

Webroot SecureAnywhere Business Endpoint Protection

Interactive Demo

Demo not available

Palo Alto Networks

Microsoft

Demo not available

OpenText

Overview

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks provides advanced threat detection with AI-driven endpoint protection and seamless integration, ensuring multi-layered security and automatic threat response.

Cortex XDR is designed to safeguard endpoints against malware and suspicious activities. It offers advanced threat detection and response capabilities using behavioral analysis, AI, and machine learning. It seamlessly integrates with security infrastructures, providing endpoint security, firewall integration, and enhanced visibility in both cloud-based and on-premises environments.

What are the key features of Cortex XDR?

Advanced Threat Detection: Uses AI and machine learning for proactive threat identification.
Multi-layered Security: Combines various security measures for comprehensive protection.
Endpoint Protection: Safeguards against malware and exploits.
Behavioral Analysis: Monitors suspicious activity for early detection.
Automatic Threat Response: Automates responses to neutralize threats.

What benefits should users expect?

Ease of Use: Simplifies security management with intuitive design.
Resource Efficiency: Minimizes impact on system resources.
Integration Capabilities: Works well with existing security setups.
Reduced Analyst Workload: Automates processes to decrease manual intervention.

Organizations in diverse sectors deploy Cortex XDR to protect against malware, leveraging its advanced threat detection capabilities. Its integration with existing security infrastructures appeals to those seeking comprehensive protection in both cloud and on-premises environments, providing enhanced visibility and threat intelligence.

Palo Alto Networks

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint provides comprehensive threat protection that integrates well with current systems, offering proactive threat detection and automatic updates while reducing manual efforts.

The platform is designed for seamless integration with Microsoft products, facilitating efficient management and use. It offers proactive ransomware protection and valuable threat intelligence, crucial for timely response and increased visibility across devices. Users highlight its ability to secure endpoints from viruses and malware, integrating with Windows and Office 365 to enhance real-time detection capabilities in diverse environments, including hybrid and on-premises setups. However, enhancements are needed in Linux integration, detection accuracy, and policy implementations.

What are the key features of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint?

Seamless Integration: Works smoothly with existing systems and Microsoft products for easy management.
Proactive Threat Detection: Advanced monitoring to identify and mitigate threats swiftly.
Ransomware Protection: Built-in features to protect against ransomware attacks automatically.
Centralized Management: Unified platform for better device visibility and collaboration.
Threat Intelligence: Provides critical data for rapid threat response.

What benefits should be evaluated in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint?

Cost-Effectiveness: Part of Windows bundles, offering comprehensive security at competitive pricing.
Time Efficiency: Reduces manual oversight with automatic updates and management ease.
Real-Time Detection: Enhanced security through seamless Office 365 and Windows integration.
Device Coverage: Supports hybrid and on-premises environments for varied digital infrastructures.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is implemented across industries for securing endpoints, relying on its deep integration with Windows and Office 365 to protect against malware and viruses. Organizations benefit from its real-time detection and comprehensive management capabilities, particularly in hybrid environments where diverse digital infrastructures need safeguarding.

Microsoft

OpenText Core Endpoint Protection offers cloud-managed endpoint security with AI integration, providing real-time protection and lightweight performance. It ensures low system impact, seamless cloud integration, and cost-effective security solutions for various devices.

OpenText Core Endpoint Protection is a comprehensive endpoint security platform utilized by managed-service providers for antivirus and firewall functionality across servers, workstations, and mobile devices. It employs AI for robust threat detection, integrating with cloud applications for real-time updates. Multi-layered security features include malware protection, network defense, and DNS protection. Although connectivity and threat reporting need improvement, this platform extensively supports remote device management and integrates efficiently with Active Directory policies.

What are the key features of OpenText Core Endpoint Protection?

Cloud Management: Centralized admin console for easy oversight
AI Integration: Enhanced threat detection capabilities
Lightweight Performance: Minimal impact on system resources
Real-time Threat Database: Constant updates for effective protection
Web Control Interface: Monitors and controls web traffic

What benefits are associated with OpenText Core Endpoint Protection?

Ease of Setup and Maintenance: Facilitates quick deployment and upkeep
Seamless Cloud Integration: Simplifies scalability and operation
Cost-Effectiveness: Affordable pricing with comprehensive features
Mobile Security Capabilities: Supports remote device management

OpenText Core Endpoint Protection finds application in industries requiring stringent data protection and peace of mind over device security. Managed-service providers implement this for comprehensive antivirus and firewall features, safeguarding multi-device networks. It is particularly useful for DNS protection and integrating with Active Directory policies, enabling secure yet flexible operations across sectors.

OpenText

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank

Petrofrac, Metro CSG, Christus Health

Mytech Partners

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. OpenText Core Endpoint Protection

September 2026

Free Report: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. OpenText Core Endpoint Protection

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. OpenText Core Endpoint Protection and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. OpenText Core Endpoint Protection report.

See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.

We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.