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

F5 SSL Visibility [EOL] vs Fidelis Elevate comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
122
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (4th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (5th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (3rd), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
F5 SSL Visibility [EOL]
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Fidelis Elevate
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (56th), Threat Deception Platforms (8th), SSL/TLS Decryption (4th), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (22nd), Managed Detection and Response (MDR) (32nd), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (45th)
 

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.
reviewer1508217 - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager, User Services at a university with 5,001-10,000 employees
Secure, highly reliable, and scalable
Given our long, good track record with the solution, I would advise if you can afford this solution then purchase it. It is a great solution. As for rating the solution, nothing is a 10 because there is always something to improve. I rate F5 SSL Visibility a nine out of ten.
Mostafa Ameen - PeerSpot reviewer
Information Security Engineer at ICT Misr
Advanced threat detection capabilities with comprehensive incident response features providing robust cybersecurity for organizations
The initial aspect concerns two engines. The first one mentioned is available for searching behaviors directly. The second engine involves the Google Ade tool, which operates on the machine. The challenge arises when attempting to rectify protection rules, causing confusion. It would be beneficial to enhance Rigixs Query. I encounter difficulty removing certain entries in behavior or alerts; likewise, I am unable to add specific calls.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I can highlight that we have not faced any security incidents with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, and even though our environment is quite dynamic, we have not faced any security incident with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks until now."
"The product is very good, it has caught a lot of exploits that most products would not."
"The most valuable features are the fact that it was running in the background and it would intercept any weird stuff, and the fact that it would send things directly to the cloud for sandboxing. It's quite practical."
"Cortex XDR's most valuable feature is its intelligence-based dashboards."
"Its interface and pricing are most valuable, and it is better than other vendors in terms of security."
"I have found the solution to be very easy in respect of the integration and configurable."
"My advice for others looking into using Cortex is that it is very easy to use and very useful for the customer environment, whether it's a public or private one."
"We switched because there were a lot of added features with Palo Alto that Check Point didn't have, and it was an upgrade for us."
"Given our long, good track record with the solution, I would advise if you can afford this solution then purchase it."
"Just the very functionality of the load balancer has been very useful to our organization."
"Every scenario we have put the solution through it has been able to handle it one way or another."
"The initial setup isn't too difficult."
"Its security features are very good; it has normal security, and then it has add-on security with a separate license, which I find very good, and it is also very stable."
"The solution's technical support is perfect, so I rate the technical support a ten out of ten"
"The initial setup is very straightforward. The deployment of the server doesn't take so long; about a day or two max."
"There are many valuable features. The NDR gives very good network visibility, and the endpoint module has a great feature called "Live Connect" for remote connections. They also have "Tasks" that can be run on endpoints to gather specific information or retrieve logs."
"It has also improved our hunt ability with quick search tools, to zone in on malware or other anomalies. It is able to link items to incidents from other consoles, and works natively with the SIEM."
"Reporting is great, it is easy to do a quick search through 45 days of data for something of interest."
"It ensures the stability of network behavior across various aspects of our network and offers responsive capabilities to address incidents promptly"
"It is used as our primary in-line IDS/IPS system, replacing FireEye NX, and it catches more, looks at more ports than FireEye NX, and is a scalable appliance, unlike our NX which was saturated and shut itself down."
"The solution is pretty scalable; you buy a lot of features, a known product, and you want it to run in any environment, and it does, so it's scalable enough."
 

Cons

"For working with the solution, you only really need a web browser, however, we've found that working on Chrome, for example, is horrible."
"It automatically detects security issues. It should be able to protect our network devices while operating autonomously."
"I don't like that they have different types of licenses. For example, if users select a license, they think they will have all the platforms they need to improve their network or security. But after some time, Palo Alto Networks changed their licensing, and some of the features that, for example, were free at the beginning now have a cost. I think the integration can be improved. For example, a lot of tools are just integrated through APIs."
"In general, the price could be more competitive."
"This is a very costly product."
"There are some third-party solutions that are difficult to integrate with, which is something that can be improved."
"It's more focused on network communication. If a customer wants to increase the level of protection and start working with documents, it's impossible to integrate these features into the system. It's more of a communication-oriented system than a content security-oriented system."
"One thing that was missing was the integration part. Currently, they don't have out-of-box integration with IBM QRadar, or if they have the integration, the integration doesn't work well."
"The price of the solution is a little high."
"The installation is complex but not more than other competitors."
"The most difficult thing that we have to deal with is SSL Hardening. Vulnerabilities are found in various ciphers, getting them removed, identifying them, et cetera."
"Their technical support is not good in comparison to other network companies. They take a long time to respond."
"It can have more features on the cloud side because we are moving a lot of servers to our cloud. Its support and scalability also need improvement. Currently, their technical support is slow, and its scalability is complex. It should have integrated SSL decryption with some special machine algorithm to tell us about certain kinds of security issues. Currently, it can decrypt, but it should also provide more information. It can have some kind of algorithm to inform us about how the packets should or shouldn't be. It should inform us when certain things are happening. When users are going to the internet and it sees an abnormal behavior or abnormal type of traffic, it should alarm us about this. It should tell us that there is some kind of strange traffic, and it shouldn't be like that. Currently, it lacks in this aspect."
"The reports in the endpoint area of Elevate can be improved."
"We position the solution as an antivirus, but this part of the solution needs improvement. They need to generally enhance the features that they have, rather than adding anything new."
"I encounter difficulty removing certain entries in behavior or alerts; likewise, I am unable to add specific calls."
"Fidelis Endpoint is an expensive product making it one of its shortcomings that needs improvement."
"The interface bug needs to be squashed once and for all."
"The interface bug needs to be squashed once and for all. This has been the predominant issue with an otherwise stellar product. It reboots itself unscheduled, about once a month, due to a memory buffer flaw in the interface."
"Configuration, in terms of building the collector and communicating with endpoints, is complex."
"There is room for improvement in email security. It's a security issue. If you're aiming for XDR, covering the entire threat landscape is crucial."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I don't like that they have different types of licenses."
"Licensing for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR can be costly, especially when it comes to a hundred users. A license is required for each user, and the subscription must be renewed on a yearly basis."
"I don't recall what the cost was, but it wasn't really that expensive."
"I am using the Community edition."
"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."
"It's the most expensive solution, but features-wise, it's quite strong. It's very good for protection, so the results are very good in the case of protection. I would rate it a two out of ten in terms of pricing."
"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."
"The price of the solution is a little high."
"Fidelis Endpoint is an expensive product. My company makes yearly payments toward the licensing cost of the solution."
"It's quite expensive but we can customize it to reduce the price."
"You license by the number of days of logs you need to maintain visibility for. Forty-five days is a good solid number for a company with around a 10k user base."
"It's somehow expensive. From one to ten, I would rate it a five. They need to improve the prices. It's very high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which SSL/TLS Decryption solutions are best for your needs.
921,523 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%
No data available
Financial Services Firm
13%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Construction Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business50
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise57
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Large Enterprise2
 

Questions from the Community

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. Sentinel One
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks. ...
Comparing CrowdStrike Falcon to Cortex XDR (Palo Alto)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions th...
How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface,...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
No data available
Fidelis Elevate Platform, Fidelis Enterprise, Fidelis Cloud, Fidelis Managed Detection and Response, Fidelis Deception, Fidelis Decryption, Fidelis Endpoint, Fidelis Network
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
American Systems, MAXIMUS, Motorists Insurance Group, Talentsoft , ZipWhip, LivePerson, SHINSEGAE INTERNET DUTY FREE
First Midwest Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, A10 Networks, Gigamon and others in SSL/TLS Decryption. Updated: November 2026.
921,523 professionals have used our research since 2012.