Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR comparison

Why PeerSpot?

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 #78. Microsoft holds a 5.4% mindshare in EDR, compared to Qualys’s 0.4% 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: October 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

October 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 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 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is 5.4%, down from 9.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys Multi-Vector EDR is 0.4%, up from 0.3% 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	5.4%
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks	3.8%
Qualys Multi-Vector EDR	0.4%
Other	90.4%

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 dashboard is customizable."

"On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks a nine."

"The protection offered by this product is good, as is the endpoint reporting."

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

"I recommend this solution to others because it is easy to manage, reliable, and overall good to use."

"It blocks malicious files, prevents attacks, and doesn't require many updates because it is a very light application."

"I have found the solution to be very easy in respect of the integration and configurable."

"There has been a significant reduction of approximately 70% to 80% in our internal MTTR and MTTD metrics, now around five to eight minutes whereas previously it was hours, which has helped tremendously."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks pros

"One of the main features is the solution is very light on resources and we do not have any problems with it."

"Ensures that I'm working with a product that gets updated regularly without me having to remember to do it. Since it's a Microsoft product, I'm confident that it requires a low use of system resources. The benefit of that being that my computer isn't constantly being drained."

"This solution definitely increases our security posture. When you are reviewing your existing fleet or endpoints and based on the configuration that you put out of your Defender for Endpoint, you then receive a security score from Microsoft. Depending on what rules you have configured, what policies you have deployed, and what attack surface reduction rules that you have set up and deployed, it is almost gamifying information security in the sense that you are always trying to achieve a higher score. The more hardening you perform on your endpoints, the better score you receive. This generally tends to give you a better peace of mind, but also makes you secure at the same time."

"The initial setup is not difficult or complex; it's very simple and straightforward."

"The product can be used for organizations that use Microsoft as their primary security defender and need zero-day threat protection."

"A few years ago, when I was using a different product, I was affected by a virus that destroyed everything. Since using Microsoft Defender, I have not had this kind of problem."

"Technical support is good."

"Auto-remediation: When the product sees malware, it resolves the issue immediately. This protects the machine."

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 general, the price could be more competitive."

"The MAC agent is not as robust feature-wise as the PC version."

"The configuration could be simplified. I would like to see better protection, specifically to protect email applications."

"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."

"The encryption is not up to the mark."

"It would be good to have a better way to search for a file within the UI."

"Fine-tuning the detection policy requires experience because the policy is very complex in Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, and we get high false positive alerts."

"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is a strong tool, but it is true that digesting information sometimes makes the tool go a little bit slower."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks cons

"Microsoft Defender could be improved with features more like the McAfee ePO. It would be better if I had a console to get all the information for my endpoints. Maybe this is too much for it, but it would be better if it could handle those non-signature-based malicious codes or viruses."

"It would be nice to have a paid upgrade that would provide additional screening of the day-to-day activities."

"The biggest issue I had with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint was the antivirus and ransomware. I wanted central visibility over all the machines that we operate."

"We need better support to learn about the product. Documentation is available, but we need some kind of training program so that we can get a better understanding of the product."

"There are likely some technical improvements or features that could be added, however, I cannot say, off the top of my head, what they would be."

"There is no behavior analytics for devices and endpoints. There is no behavior-based protection."

"It is currently more suitable for end-users rather than enterprises with lots of other processes and third-party tools. It needs improvement on that front. We had many issues while integrating it with our enterprise solutions, such as Splunk, and third-party tools. It provides everything via APIs. Other vendors provide integration with third-party tools, but Microsoft doesn't do that. It is also logging too much and is not serialized from the process aspect. It has all the data, but it is not in a proper format or not properly indexed, which doesn't make it easier for enterprises to use this data. Other vendors provide troubleshooting information that can be used to troubleshoot issues, but Microsoft doesn't provide anything like that."

"The solution has minimal customization options, especially compared to Mandiant, so we want to see more scope for customization. A single portal for customization would also be a welcome addition."

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."

"My challenge is actually comparing offerings from different vendors across a threat spectrum that is very large."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is cost-effective compared to similar solutions. It fits for the small businesses through to the big businesses."

"This is an expensive solution."

"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is an expensive solution."

"The price of the solution could be reduced. I have customers that have voiced that the solution is good for the value but if I want to sell more of the solution the price reduction would help."

"Very costly product."

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

"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."

"I feel it is fairly priced."

More Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks pricing and cost advice

"There is no license needed, the solution comes with Microsoft Windows."

"Licensing fees are paid annually through a partner."

"The solution is free and comes with Windows."

"Buying individual point products would've cost us a lot more money than one integrated solution that also capitalizes on Teams Voice and things of that nature. Given our size, buying individual products would have easily cost us a million dollars."

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

"We pay a yearly license for Microsoft Defender. We also have a support contract with them."

"It came with Windows."

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

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

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

16%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Outsourcing Company

12%

Comms Service Provider

12%

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

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?

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

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SentinelOne Singularity Endpoint vs Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

Compared 4% 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

OpenText Core Endpoint Protection vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

Compared 7% of the time

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

More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Competitors

CrowdStrike Falcon vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 18% of the time

ExtraHop Reveal(x) vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 9% of the time

Darktrace vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 7% of the time

Huntress Managed EDR vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 6% of the time

TrendAI Vision One vs Qualys Multi-Vector EDR

Compared 6% of the time

More Qualys Multi-Vector EDR Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

October 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

Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)

October 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 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

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)

October 2026

Download Free Report

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

920,929 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.