Self-hosted XDR: 15 platforms compared
XDR platforms pull endpoint, network, identity and cloud data into one set of detections. Most are built SaaS-first. That means your endpoint data sits in the vendor's cloud. If you have data residency rules, that is the first question to ask, not the last.
nPro publishes this comparison. Where nPro appears as one of the platforms listed, its card is marked and its scores are our own assessment. Third-party review scores are sourced from public vendor profiles. Structural facts are verifiable against each vendor's documentation: deployment model, licensing basis and residency.
15 platforms
nPro
NPRO TECH Sdn. Bhd.
Self-hosted only: publisher of this comparison.
Reviews
—
Licensing
$4.50/agent/mo
Average score
8.1
- +Runs entirely on your own infrastructure with no cloud dependency and no SaaS option.
- +Flat USD 4.50 per agent per month with no per-gigabyte ingestion charge at any tier.
- +Bundles network monitoring with SIEM and XDR on one ClickHouse backend.
- −Smaller integration ecosystem than any tier-one vendor in this table.
- −Behavioural analytics still in development. Identity Sync is live, baselining is not.
Best for Regulated organisations that must keep security telemetry inside their own perimeter.
Watch out No SaaS option and no vendor-staffed SOC. You operate the platform yourself.
CrowdStrike Falcon
CrowdStrike
Category leader: enterprise XDR.
Reviews
G2 4.7 (581)
Licensing
Per endpoint, per module
Average score
7.5
- +Widely regarded as the strongest detection engine in the category.
- +Largest adversary intelligence library of any vendor listed here.
- +Charlotte AI automates a very high proportion of alert triage.
- −SaaS only. Telemetry is processed in CrowdStrike's cloud with no on-premises option.
- −Among the most expensive platforms in the category, and priced per module.
Best for Enterprise SOCs prioritising detection quality and threat intelligence depth.
Watch out No self-hosted path. That is a hard stop for data residency and air-gap requirements.
CrowdStrike Falcon vs nPro →Microsoft Defender XDR
Microsoft
Bundled with Microsoft 365 E5.
Reviews
G2 4.5 (288)
Licensing
M365 E5 licence tier
Average score
7.6
- +Effectively free at the margin for organisations already licensed for M365 E5.
- +Deepest possible integration with Entra ID, Exchange and the Microsoft estate.
- +Security Copilot adds AI-assisted investigation without a separate purchase.
- −Runs in Azure only. There is no on-premises deployment at any tier.
- −Coverage is materially weaker across non-Windows endpoints and Linux servers.
Best for Microsoft-centric enterprises already paying for E5 Security.
Watch out Value collapses outside the Microsoft stack, and residency is fixed to Azure regions.
Microsoft Defender XDR vs nPro →SentinelOne Singularity
SentinelOne
Autonomous response specialist.
Reviews
G2 4.7 (213)
Licensing
Per endpoint
Average score
8.0
- +Autonomous containment without waiting for analyst intervention.
- +One-click rollback reverses ransomware file encryption on the endpoint.
- +Purple AI supports natural-language threat hunting across telemetry.
- −Licensing model is complex. Validate per-seat versus capacity carefully.
- −On-premises availability has varied by release and region; confirm before shortlisting.
Best for Teams wanting automated response without building the automation themselves.
Watch out Confirm current self-hosted availability directly. Do not assume from older documentation.
SentinelOne Singularity vs nPro →Palo Alto Cortex XDR
Palo Alto Networks
AI-driven XDR for the enterprise.
Reviews
G2 4.5 (86)
Licensing
Per endpoint + data volume
Average score
7.3
- +Storyline stitches related alerts into a single readable attack narrative.
- +Unifies endpoint, network and cloud telemetry where the Palo Alto stack is already present.
- +Unit 42 research provides strong APAC threat actor coverage.
- −At the expensive end of the market once data volume is factored in.
- −Detections are noisy until tuned. Budget engineering time, not just licence cost.
Best for Enterprises already standardised on Palo Alto networking and firewalls.
Watch out Model total cost including tuning services; licence price alone understates it.
Palo Alto Cortex XDR vs nPro →TrendAI Vision One
TrendAI (Trend Micro)
Cloud-native XDR with APAC focus.
Reviews
G2 4.7 (252)
Licensing
Credit-based
Average score
7.6
- +Strong regional threat intelligence for Southeast Asian threat actors.
- +Attack surface management included alongside detection and response.
- +Risk-based prioritisation surfaces the highest-exposure assets first.
- −Alert volume is high before tuning. Expect significant initial rollout investment.
- −Credit-based licensing makes forecasting harder than per-endpoint models.
Best for Regional enterprises wanting cloud XDR with APAC-specific threat context.
Watch out Understand the credit model thoroughly before committing to a term.
TrendAI Vision One vs nPro →Sophos Intercept X / XDR
Sophos
Consistently top-rated in SMB and mid-market.
Reviews
G2 4.7 (837)
Licensing
Per endpoint
Average score
7.9
- +Deep learning detection stops ransomware without relying on signatures.
- +Security Heartbeat auto-isolates a compromised endpoint at the firewall.
- +Among the easiest platforms in this table to operate with a small team.
- −Managed through Sophos Central. There is no self-hosted management plane.
- −Full detection and response capability requires the Sophos MDR add-on.
Best for SMB and mid-market teams wanting strong protection with minimal operational load.
Watch out May reach practical limits above roughly ten thousand endpoints.
Sophos Intercept X / XDR vs nPro →Cybereason XDR
LevelBlue
Attack-chain visualisation.
Reviews
G2 4.4 (18)
Licensing
Per endpoint
Average score
7.6
- +Malop attack-chain view is genuinely strong for investigation workflow.
- +On-premises deployment has historically been available, which is unusual in this category.
- +Behavioural detection performs well against fileless and living-off-the-land techniques.
- −Acquired by LevelBlue (an MSSP) in November 2025. Confirm the standalone product roadmap before committing.
- −Limited partner and support presence across Southeast Asia.
Best for Teams wanting strong investigation UX with an on-premises option.
Watch out Confirm current on-premises feature parity. It has historically trailed the SaaS build.
Cybereason XDR vs nPro →Trellix XDR
Trellix
McAfee and FireEye lineage.
Reviews
—
Licensing
Per endpoint
Average score
7.4
- +Hybrid deployment options including on-premises management.
- +Broad existing install base in government and large enterprise.
- +Strong network detection heritage from the FireEye side of the business.
- −Post-merger product consolidation has made the portfolio harder to navigate.
- −Management experience rated below newer platforms by most reviewers.
Best for Existing McAfee or FireEye estates consolidating onto one platform.
Watch out Clarify which components are current and which are in sunset before buying.
Trellix XDR vs nPro →Bitdefender GravityZone XDR
Bitdefender
Strong independent lab test results.
Reviews
G2 4.1 (108)
Licensing
Per endpoint
Average score
8.1
- +Consistently top results in AV-TEST and AV-Comparatives independent testing.
- +On-premises GravityZone deployment available, unlike most XDR vendors here.
- +One platform covers endpoints, servers, virtual machines and cloud workloads.
- −Console navigation flagged as complex by a meaningful share of reviewers.
- −Deep scans can affect performance on older endpoint hardware.
Best for Organisations wanting proven detection with an on-premises management option.
Watch out Verify which XDR features are available in the on-premises build specifically.
Bitdefender GravityZone XDR vs nPro →Elastic Security
Elastic
Open platform: SIEM and endpoint.
Reviews
G2 4.5 (23)
Licensing
Free / resource-based tiers
Average score
8.1
- +Fully self-hostable with no vendor lock-in on your own data.
- +Unified SIEM, endpoint and threat hunting on one searchable platform.
- +Very large integration library and an active open community.
- −Requires genuine Elasticsearch operational expertise to run well at scale.
- −Machine learning and several security features sit behind paid tiers.
Best for Engineering-capable teams wanting an open platform they fully control.
Watch out The licence may be free but the operational cost is not. Staff for it honestly.
Elastic Security vs nPro →Wazuh
Wazuh Inc.
Open source: GPLv2.
Reviews
G2 4.5 (72)
Licensing
Free; paid support available
Average score
8.0
- +Genuinely free and open source with no licence cost at any scale.
- +Mature rule engine, file integrity monitoring and configuration assessment.
- +Fully self-hosted and air-gap capable with a large community rule base.
- −The surrounding stack is where the real cost lands: indexer, dashboards and storage.
- −Operational burden falls entirely on your team unless a support contract is bought.
Best for Teams with platform engineering capacity and a strong preference for open source.
Watch out Budget for the indexing layer and the engineer who maintains it.
Wazuh vs nPro →Cisco XDR
Cisco
Network-led XDR.
Reviews
G2 4.7 (3)
Licensing
Per endpoint
Average score
7.1
- +Strongest network telemetry story of any platform in this table.
- +Talos threat intelligence is among the largest research operations in the industry.
- +Natural fit where Cisco networking is already the standard.
- −SaaS delivery with no on-premises option for the XDR control plane.
- −Full value depends on owning a broad amount of Cisco infrastructure.
Best for Cisco-standardised enterprises wanting network and endpoint correlation.
Watch out Assess how much of the value is contingent on further Cisco purchases.
Cisco XDR vs nPro →Fortinet FortiXDR
Fortinet
Security Fabric integration.
Reviews
—
Licensing
Per endpoint
Average score
7.6
- +Tight integration with FortiGate firewalls and the wider Security Fabric.
- +On-premises appliance and virtual machine options available.
- +Competitive pricing where Fortinet hardware is already deployed.
- −Detection breadth trails the specialist endpoint vendors in this table.
- −Value is heavily dependent on already running Fortinet networking.
Best for Fortinet-standardised networks wanting endpoint correlation without a new vendor.
Watch out Evaluate detection quality on its own merits, not on Fabric convenience.
Fortinet FortiXDR vs nPro →ESET Inspect
ESET
Lightweight agent, on-premises capable.
Reviews
—
Licensing
Per endpoint
Average score
8.2
- +On-premises ESET PROTECT server available. That is a genuine self-hosted control plane.
- +Very low endpoint performance impact compared with most agents here.
- +Strong false-positive control, which reduces analyst load meaningfully.
- −Managed detection service is less mature than managed-first competitors.
- −Advanced threat intelligence features require additional tiers.
Best for SMB and mid-market wanting self-hosted EDR with a light agent footprint.
Watch out ESET is folding the cloud Inspect console into ESET PROTECT through 2027. On-premises Inspect is unaffected, so specify the on-prem build.
ESET Inspect vs nPro →Capability matrix
| Capability | NP | CS | MD | S1 | PA | TM | SO | CR | TX | BD | EL | WZ | CI | FT | ES |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-hosted deployment | ✓ | — | — | ~ | — | — | — | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ~ | ✓ |
| Fully air-gapped operation | ✓ | — | — | — | — | — | — | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ~ | ~ |
| Bundled network monitoring | ✓ | — | — | — | ~ | ~ | — | — | ~ | — | ~ | — | ✓ | ✓ | — |
| MITRE ATT&CK mapping | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| File integrity monitoring | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ~ | ~ |
| YARA rule support | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ |
| STIX / TAXII ingestion | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ |
| Behavioural analytics (UEBA) | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ |
| SOAR / playbook automation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ |
| Flat per-unit licensing | ✓ | — | — | ~ | — | — | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | — | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| No per-GB ingestion charge | ✓ | ~ | — | ~ | — | — | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ |
✓ supported · ~ partial or requires an add-on · — not available
How to read this comparison
Start with the deployment model, not the detection claims. Every platform here says it links endpoint, network, identity and cloud data. What differs is where that work happens, and who holds your data while it does.
Treat the scores as relative to this set. They are not absolute. A 7.5 for detection does not mean a platform misses a quarter of attacks. It means it sits below the leaders in this group, on the evidence we reviewed.
Residency is usually the column you cannot trade away. If your rules say endpoint data must stay inside your network, the SaaS-only platforms drop out. Their other scores stop mattering. The shortlist gets short fast.
Compare two platforms
Comparison data last verified 2026-10-06. Vendors change packaging frequently — tell us if anything here is out of date and we will correct it.