Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR comparison

Microsoft and Qualys are both solutions in the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) category. Microsoft is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.4, while Qualys is ranked #72. Microsoft holds a 6.9% mindshare in EDR, compared to Qualys’s 0.3% mindshare. Additionally, 95% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Qualys users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Qualys Multi-Vector EDR based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Microsoft and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR).

To learn more, read our detailed Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,873 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 March 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 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is 6.9%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys Multi-Vector EDR is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint	6.9%
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks	3.4%
Qualys Multi-Vector EDR	0.3%
Other	89.4%

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

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

reviewer1668453

Director, Security Innovation at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees

Provides contextual alerts and risk ratings on findings

It's kind of difficult to quantify areas for improvement. In the larger picture, one challenge is that the NDR space is very crowded today. I can mention half a dozen names just off the top of my head. There are at least 12 to 20 different players. All of them are well-known brand names, and it's difficult to compare them. They all claim to be giving you the same network difference capability: catching malware, dealing with all the minor taxonomy of attack, all that. Still, it's very difficult to compare them side by side because they all do things a little differently, and they all have different presentations and output. We haven't deployed it, so I can't give you what we felt about it exactly. But in the larger perspective, the critical feature is really giving a clear separation between a low, high, and medium criticality. You need a rating that is really true to the actual attack. There's one other capability we are evaluating them for, and it's for custom alerts detection. A lot of these products are trying to profile the threats that are already out there in the industry. They're very well known and published. Today, there are targeted acts being played against organizations, so you have to be sensitive to how your firewalls, protocols, and your HTTP are all operating. You might have some fine-tuned threats that are targeting you, and you should be able to build custom defenses. They should have some openness in terms of how you specify your threats. You get a standard library of threats. On top of it, every organization builds its own.

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

"The user interface of the solution is sophisticated and straightforward."

"We can visualize and control the activities in the environment from anywhere."

"The solution helps find bugs, and it is safe to use to prevent attacks by hackers."

"Provides behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection."

"Monitoring is most valuable."

"Best solution for avoiding security breaches, malware attacks, and other kinds of security issues."

"If any application performs suspicious activities, such as changing registries or modifying other applications, Cortex XDR detects and blocks the entire application."

"The tool is designed to scale for large enterprises and handle large volumes of data."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks pros

"It's absolutely free to use."

"Integration between Microsoft products is very easy."

"The solution is highly scalable."

"Its real-time security is the most valuable."

"It's free. There is no additional cost. It's part of Windows."

"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has been leading the field in EDR, and there are so many benefits to how that is managed versus the traditional products; that's huge."

"User-friendly, offering safety and security."

"The most likable feature of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is the sheer number of features and data it provides."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint pros

"They can provide you very contextual alerts on if something bad is happening—coming into your network or going out of your network. As part of that, they gather a lot of threat intelligence and map your connections against that. The larger benefit is that they give you a risk rating on their findings."

Cons

"In terms of areas of improvement, we have not completed our review of the product. We're also looking at other products. So, it's a little bit hard to tell what could be different because we have not completed the review of this product, but based on our experience so far, its implementation is quite complex."

"It is an enterprise-level solution. Its price could be less expensive."

"The downsides of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks are that in many incidents, when I enter the causality chain, there are numerous logs."

"There is a severe gap in functionality between Windows, Linux, and Mac versions. For example all folder restriction settings are Windows only. Traps 5.0+ does not have SAML / LDAP integration."

"When it comes to core analysis, and security analysis, Cortex needs to provide more information."

"Data privacy is a matter of concern. You have to be careful with data privacy, it can be sensitive and Cortex can have most of your access."

"It is not very strong in terms of endpoint management. It should have additional features like DLP, encryption, or advanced device control. Currently, Cortex is good in terms of the security of the endpoints, but it is not as good as other vendors in terms of the management of the endpoint."

"Additionally, I think the price is very high, and if it can be adjusted, I believe it will be a very good solution."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks cons

"The end-user also cannot do some advanced actions on it. It's a little bit complicated for our end-user, so it needs to be simplified."

"Updates are not coming out of preview quickly enough and it is holding back on the development of the product."

"Sometimes, there are different skews. In a basic skew, they should have basic log analysis without the need to integrate with any third-party or SIEM solutions, like Sentinel. This would make it so much easier for users who don't have log collection or log analysis."

"Defender for Endpoint is complex, and the documentation is detailed. At the same time, it's hard to navigate sometimes."

"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."

"The solution could be even more secure and provide an even higher level of security."

"The time to generate certain alerts on our dashboard can take between 45 minutes to an hour, and I am unsure of the factors that influence this duration."

"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."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint cons

"My challenge is actually comparing offerings from different vendors across a threat spectrum that is very large. We are talking about millions of threats. How are you confident that Blue Hexagon is catching all one million of them and Palo Alto is doing the same thing? They all have their strengths. Within that, Blue Hexagon might cover 990,000 of them. Palo Alto might cover another 990,000. It's a bit difficult to compare them and say, "Oh, are they catching the same 990,000?" I don't know."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is on the higher side, but it's okay."

"The solution is expensive. It's pricing is on a yearly-basis."

"I don't like that they have different types of 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 is "expensive" and flexible."

"This is an expensive solution."

"I don't recall what the cost was, but it wasn't really that expensive."

"The pricing is a little high. It is per user per year."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks pricing and cost advice

"We have an enterprise agreement so from my perspective, this is a product that ships with Windows and it is not priced standalone."

"The solution is free and comes with Windows."

"The license for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is included in the license for the Microsoft Windows operating system."

"The licensing costs for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint are reasonable."

"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is more affordable compared to some other endpoint solutions."

"They are now doing it on an endpoint basis. It is based on the number of endpoints, which is good."

"The licensing fee is a function of your Office 365 license. The feature set you get is a function of the license as well. There is probably an E2 version, an E3 version, and an E5 version. There are several versions, and not all features are the same. So, you might want to check what features you're expecting because you might get shocked. If you only have an E3 license, the capability isn't the same."

"The subscription is part of Windows, so we don't have to pay anything extra for this product."

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint pricing and cost advice

"It's difficult to state the setup cost. All the NDRs range anywhere between $500,000, plus or minus, to $2 million. There's a spread of pricing here, depending on who you are talking to. Obviously the major brand names want more money. They typically bundle it with their other offerings. With Cisco, for example, you don't just buy an NDR. So, typically it gets rolled into the cost."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

Government

Financial Services Firm

12%

Comms Service Provider

Retailer

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	44
Midsize Enterprise	20
Large Enterprise	47

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	81
Midsize Enterprise	40
Large Enterprise	95

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. ...

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?

I'm not too familiar with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint; it wasn't some...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SentinelOne Singularity Complete vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 6% of the time

CrowdStrike Falcon vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 4% of the time

Cortex XSIAM 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

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 4% of the time

HP Wolf Security vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 4% of the time

Symantec Endpoint Security vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 4% of the time

F-Secure Total vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 3% of the time

OpenText Core Endpoint Protection vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 3% of the time

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Competitors

CrowdStrike Falcon vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 31% of the time

ExtraHop Reveal(x) vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 15% of the time

Darktrace vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 9% of the time

Huntress Managed EDR vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 9% of the time

More Qualys Multi-Vector EDR Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

March 2026

Download Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks product report

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

March 2026

Download Microsoft Defender for Endpoint product report

Buyer's Guide

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

March 2026

Download Qualys Multi-Vector EDR 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

Blue Hexagon

Interactive Demo

Demo not available

Palo Alto Networks

Microsoft

Demo not available

Qualys

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 is a comprehensive security solution that provides advanced threat protection for organizations. It offers real-time protection against various types of cyber threats, including malware, viruses, ransomware, and phishing attacks.

With its powerful machine-learning capabilities, it can detect and block sophisticated attacks before they can cause any harm. The solution also includes endpoint detection and response (EDR) capabilities, allowing organizations to quickly investigate and respond to security incidents. It provides detailed insights into the attack timeline, enabling security teams to understand the scope and impact of an incident.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint also offers proactive threat hunting, allowing organizations to proactively search for and identify potential threats within their network. It integrates seamlessly with other Microsoft security solutions, such as Microsoft Defender XDR, to provide a unified and holistic security approach. With its centralized management console, organizations can easily deploy, configure, and monitor the security solution across their entire network.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a robust and scalable security solution that helps organizations protect their endpoints and data from evolving cyber threats.

Microsoft

Qualys Multi-Vector EDR is designed for real-time threat detection and response, offering comprehensive visibility into potential security breaches across endpoints.

This solution integrates seamlessly with other Qualys modules, facilitating automated workflows that streamline incident management and enhance efficiency in monitoring and mitigating cyber threats. With features like real-time monitoring, detailed reporting, and proactive alerting, security teams can quickly identify and address vulnerabilities. While appreciated for its scalability and ease of deployment, users suggest improvements in integration, reporting, and configuration to further enhance its capabilities.

What are the key features of Qualys Multi-Vector EDR?

Real-time Threat Detection: Continuously monitors endpoints to detect potential threats immediately.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with other Qualys modules and existing systems for streamlined operations.
Automated Response: Automates incident response workflows to enhance efficiency and reduce manual tasks.
Detailed Reporting: Provides in-depth reports to support proactive security measures and quick remediation.
Scalability: Suitable for businesses of varying sizes due to its scalable architecture.

What are the benefits and ROI to look for when evaluating Qualys Multi-Vector EDR?

Enhanced Security: Comprehensive threat detection ensures robust security measures.
Improved Efficiency: Automated workflows save time and reduce manual intervention.
Quick Remediation: Real-time alerts and detailed reports facilitate swift vulnerability mitigation.
Cost-effective Deployment: Scalable and resource-efficient architecture suitable for businesses large and small.

Qualys Multi-Vector EDR is implemented across industries such as finance, healthcare, and retail, where real-time threat detection and automated response are critical. Its ability to integrate with existing systems and provide detailed reporting makes it a valuable asset for enhancing cybersecurity measures in diverse environments.

Qualys

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank

Petrofrac, Metro CSG, Christus Health

Pacific Dental Services, Greenhill and Co, Heffernan Insurance Brokers

Buyer's Guide

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

March 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Microsoft and others in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR). Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.

We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.