I have been using Cortex for 12 years. My main use case for Cortex is working on a daily basis, sometimes for programming and sometimes for supporting clients.

A quick specific example of how I use Cortex is when a customer reports that the IMXRT 1170 board occasionally doesn't boot from flash after a power cycle. I sometimes have a customer who wants below 10 milliamps on RT1170, so for low power debug, I use the WFI instruction to enter sleep mode.

Cortex has positively impacted my organization significantly by enhancing both engineering efficiency and customer success in my work. The consistency of the architecture from Cortex M0 plus up to the M7, M33 means development teams can scale design, reuse code, and shorten bring-up cycles, thus reducing time to market and lowering support overhead.

I have several cases where the Cortex architecture directly contributes to measurable efficiency and faster problem resolution; one recent example was a customer facing intermittent system crashes during high throughput audio streaming. By using Cortex debug capabilities, particularly the fault status register, PC trace, and SWD real-time halt, we identified stack overflow and interrupt priority conflict within a few hours. Without those built-in debug tools, this type of issue could easily take multiple days of trial and error.

While I do not manage the hiring budget or platform purchasing, I see direct efficiency and cost benefits from using Cortex-based platforms in the projects I support. Cortex improves ROI mainly by reducing debug time, enabling code reuse across devices, and avoiding redesign cycles. Resolving a real-time stability issue with Cortex debug tools saved two to three days of engineering effort and prevented a potential hardware investigation. The consistency of the architecture lowers long-term development and maintenance costs.

In my opinion, the best features Cortex offers are mainly DSP and its deterministic real-time performance, which also includes the nested NVIC, low power modes, and sleep instructions. Hardware DSP, SIMD instructions, the MPU, floating-point, TrustZone for security, advanced debug and trace, and scalability across series from M0 to M7 to M85 enhance its functionality.

The deterministic real-time behavior, consistent low interrupt latency, the NVIC interrupt controller which provides fine-grained priority control and fast context switching are the features that make the biggest difference in my daily work. Overall, Cortex delivers excellent real-time performance and strong debug capabilities.

Cortex could do more with a unified low power management framework or enhanced trace and debug visibility by default, and more native support for mixed-criticality scheduling with stronger built-in guidance for memory AR key usage.

Cortex is very strong overall, but it could benefit from more standardized low power APIs, easier trace debug access without extra hardware, improved mixed-criticality scheduling support, and clearer tooling documentation around cache, TCM, and memory AR key usage. These improvements would accelerate real-time development and reduce tuning time.

Cortex delivers excellent real-time performance, reliability, and a mature development ecosystem. The interrupt architecture, security extensions, power-saving features, and debug visibility are very strong and consistently help deliver stable and efficient embedded systems in real-world projects. There are still areas where the developer experience could be improved further. Power management standardization across vendors could be more unified, making low power bring-up faster and more consistent. More integration on-chip trace options without relying on external hardware would improve field debugging and reduce development time. Additionally, built-in support for mixed-criticality workloads such as voice, audio DSP, connectivity, and application logic would simplify running complex pipelines with less tuning. These improvements would make Cortex even more efficient to work with and enhance the entire development workflow.

One additional improvement I think would be valuable for Cortex is having more built-in tooling or guidance for real-time performance profiling directly on the core, especially lightweight integrated ways to visualize interrupt timing, CPU loading, and memory bandwidth usage without requiring an external trace module. A lightweight standardized real-time profiling interface such as SR timing, CPU load, and memory bandwidth, along with more reference material for optimal memory hierarchy usage, would make development even smoother.

I have been working in my current field for one year.

Cortex is stable in my experience.

Cortex's scalability is impressive; we can scale it from Cortex M0 to M7 and M85 cores.

Customer support is easy to access and responsive.

Before choosing Cortex, I evaluated legacy architectures such as AVR, PIC, and some proprietary DSP cores.

My advice for others looking into using Cortex is to leverage the ecosystem. Lean on the ecosystem, study the NVIC and memory architecture early, use vendor SDKs, and enable debug security features from the start to get the most out of Cortex. I would suggest making the interview more interactive in the future. I rate this product an eight.

Our primary use case for Cortex XDR is to bridge the gap between a Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) system and an Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solution. We use it to fetch data from network devices and endpoints, perform comparisons, and generate alerts. It is useful for detecting impossible travel scenarios where a user's IP address switches rapidly between geographically distant locations, which can indicate VPN use or other anomalies.

The product's most valuable feature is the ability to integrate and correlate data from network and endpoint sources. This comprehensive visibility allows us to quickly identify and respond to threats, such as impossible travel scenarios, with greater accuracy and speed.

The product could be improved in several areas. The complexity and confusion regarding product variants, such as XDR, Forexiant, and Forexon, must be addressed. There is also a need for clearer differentiation between features and capabilities within Cortex's suite, as the overlap between XDR and XIM can be confusing.

Improvements in the user interface and more intuitive KQL query handling could also enhance usability. Additionally, better support for various deployment scenarios and cost management options would be beneficial.

I have been using Cortex for approximately two years.

The solution's stability is generally good.

The solution scales well. It is deployed without major issues across 60,000 endpoints in our organization.

Customer support quality varies depending on the support plan. The premium plan offers excellent support. However, if you opt for a standard plan, the level of support may be less satisfactory.

The initial setup was relatively straightforward. Modern methods, such as pushing clients over port 443, have made deploying endpoints easier than legacy systems.

Cortex XDR is a costly solution.

Overall, Cortex XDR is good software. Ensure you have the financial resources to support the investment or consider alternative solutions if cost is a significant concern.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

With Cortex, we can automate the analysis of all the alerts. We use it to automate any kind of activity.

The solution's most valuable feature is writing playbooks. Playbooks are a feature in Cortex that allows us to customize many activities according to an organization's requirements. It's basically a kind of threat-handling feature.

It would be more beneficial to integrate threat intelligence in Cortex.

I have been using Cortex for three years.

Cortex is a stable solution.

Three people use the solution in our organization.

I had a very nice conversation with the solution's technical support team, and it was a very good experience.

The solution’s initial setup is very easy.

Cortex is an expensive solution.

Our company decided to use Cortex because it is very easy to use and deploy in our environment. I would recommend the solution to other users. Cortex is worth the money. It is very easy for a beginner to learn to use Cortex for the first time.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Cortex is an automation tool, which I have used to make manual processes flow in an automated way. We need to create flows to automate the manual processes.

Cortex orchestration, which I have used to make process automations. That is the Cortex Automation.

I liked the flow creation and the way it handled orchestration from a development point of view. However, my opinion has changed a bit since using ServiceNow, which is more flexible compared to Cortex. In order to create the pro-designer and process automation.

It was mainly used for automation. For example, a telecom company needed to handle multiple network devices like Cisco devices. They had to check compliance, functionalities, and expiry dates manually. We automated those technical operations.

First of all, it's not very user-friendly. It's quite lagging and not very fast. I believe it's developed in C#, which makes it a bit slow.

There are many hidden structures, so sometimes the flow gets stuck. We have communicated with Cortex community, and they are still working on these issues. System slowness and performance are the main concerns.

I used it for one year.

I would rate it a six out of ten, with one being low and ten being high because I have only about one and a half years of experience with Cortex. So, I would rate it a six due to its slowness and complexity.

There were around 20 end users.

They sometimes delay in providing answers and often don't give proper answers.

Recently, I moved to the ServiceNow platform.

To create processes and automate them, ServiceNow offers more flexibility.

Cortex is a single point for automation. For end-to-end deployment, it involves front-end and back-end technologies. We have implemented Logix in Cortex to communicate with network devices. So, we haven't faced any issues during deployment, but after deployment, the slowness of Cortex application or system becomes apparent.

Deployment model:

It's deployed on-premises because I worked for an IT company. They had a relationship with Cortex, and we provided automation services to a telecom client using Cortex.

Integration:

It was easy to integrate Cortex with existing infrastructure and other tech tools. We have done integrations with Amdocs products for the telecom industry using MuleSoft, webMethods, and REST APIs, so it definitely supports these.

It's cheaper. For example, if UiPath costs ten dollars, Cortex might be around three to four dollars. But I'm not part of the pricing team, so this is just my opinion.

It's not difficult for a beginner to learn to use Cortex. I started as a beginner, and it was manageable. It just depends on the learner's interest.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. However, compared to other automation tools, Cortex is not the best, according to current market trends.

I suggest looking at alternatives like UiPath and Automation Anywhere. I don't have experience with them, but they are trending in the market.

Currently, ServiceNow is also popular for automation purposes.