We performed a comparison between Swimlane and Tines based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Palo Alto Networks, Splunk and others in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)."It's easy to use. It's a very good product. It can easily ingest data from anywhere. It has an easily understandable language to perform actions."
"Its inbuilt Kusto Query Language is a valuable feature. It provides the flexibility needed to leverage advanced data analytics rules and policies and enables us to easily navigate all our security events in a single view. It helps any user easily understand the data or any security lags in their data and applications."
"I like the ability to run custom KQL queries. I don't know if that feature is specific to Sentinel. As far as I know, they are using technology built into Azure's Log Analytics app. Sentinel integrates with that, and we use this functionality heavily."
"The standout feature of Sentinel is that, because it's cloud-based and because it's from Microsoft, it integrates really well with all the other Microsoft products. It's really simple to set up and get going."
"The most valuable feature is the onboarding of the workloads. You can see all that has been onboarded in your account on the dashboards."
"We are able to deploy within half an hour and we only require one person to complete the implementation."
"Mainly, this is a cloud-native product. So, there are zero concerns about managing the whole infrastructure on-premises."
"The data connectors that Microsoft Sentinel provides are easy to integrate when we work with a Microsoft agent."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the support."
"The technical support from Swimlane is very good."
"It provides us with a single portal for our logs from different solutions."
"The tool was vendor-neutral."
"Sometimes, we are observing large ingestion delays. We expect logs within 5 minutes, but it takes about 10 to 15 minutes."
"The troubleshooting has room for improvement."
"Sentinel still has some anomalies. For example, sometimes when we write a query for log analysis with KQL, it doesn't give us the data in a proper way... Also, the fields or columns could be improved. Sometimes, it is not giving the desired results and there is a blank field."
"I believe one of the challenges I encountered was the absence of live training sessions, even with the option to pay for them."
"They could use some kind of workbook. There is some limitation doing the editing and creating the workbook."
"The product can be improved by reducing the cost to use AI machine learning."
"The interface could be more user-friendly. It''s a small improvement that they could make if they wanted to."
"The solution should allow for a streamlined CI/CD procedure."
"We faced a lot of issues with the product’s stability."
"The initial setup and deployment are complex."
"The stability of the solution has room for improvement."
"Tines was a little bit more expensive than Torq."
Earn 20 points
Swimlane is ranked 17th in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 3 reviews while Tines is ranked 24th in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 1 review. Swimlane is rated 7.6, while Tines is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Swimlane writes "Great support, scalable, and easier to code". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tines writes "Vendor-neutral, increases response time, and enables to reduce staff by 30%". Swimlane is most compared with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, Splunk SOAR, Fortinet FortiSOAR, ServiceNow Security Operations and Cyware Fusion and Threat Response, whereas Tines is most compared with Torq, Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, Splunk SOAR and ServiceNow Security Operations.
See our list of best Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) vendors.
We monitor all Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) 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.