Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR vs Proofpoint Threat Response comparison

 

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

Palo Alto Networks Cortex X...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (2nd), SOC as a Service (2nd)
Proofpoint Threat Response
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Security Incident Response (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is designed for Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) and holds a mindshare of 11.1%, down 13.0% compared to last year.
Proofpoint Threat Response, on the other hand, focuses on Security Incident Response, holds 16.4% mindshare, up 7.6% since last year.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
Security Incident Response
 

Featured Reviews

NikhilSharma2 - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to multiple playbooks to fetch data from multiple firewalls and utomated several tasks, including vulnerability scans and SOCL (Security Orchestration, Automation
Recently, they started implementing microservices in XSOAR, which has improved quality and addressed previous issues. However, they should focus more on licensing costs. The user licensing fees are quite high. For example, I received a quote for XSOAR, and it was $12,000 per user per year. If you have a SOC team of 30 members/analysts, you're looking at a substantial expense. They should consider reducing these costs since this high pricing seems to be more about profit. So, there is room for improvement in the pricing. Moreover, the reporting and dashboard features are decent but could be improved. The user interface (UI) is quite heavy and takes time to load, which is a major drawback.
Giuseppe Sgroi - PeerSpot reviewer
Blocks potential spam emails efficiently and integrates well with our security framework
We use the product to verify and manage emails sent and received through our Microsoft Exchange server, focusing on blocking potential spam emails The platform's most valuable include the ability to check emails and block potential spam. The platform's technical support services and pricing need…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product’s stability is good."
"I chose Cortex XSOAR because the client also has Palo Alto firewalls. I can incorporate the data from the Palo Alto firewalls into Cortex and send it into the same data lake to manipulate that data. It lets me manage and monitor the data in one place."
"The product is quite easy to use."
"It has an extensive list of integrations that are available out of the box which makes it easy to start."
"The solution is user-friendly and easy to configure."
"The most valuable features are the orchestration because of the way in which it coordinates the loss from all the devices and it provides us with a high-level overview of the critical log information."
"Palo Alto is easy to use."
"The pricing is very good."
"It has reduced our manual efforts to remove emails from each user's inbox, and in this case we do not have to ask our IT department or users to do so."
"Support is very responsive."
"The best part of Proofpoint Threat Response is the Auto-Pull feature. Being able to pull an email back from a user's mailbox is very useful, yet I have noticed that not a lot of organizations use this kind of feature."
"The platform's most valuable include the ability to check emails and block potential spam."
"If something's pulled and then it's later declared a false positive, it will automatically restore. They also take automatic feeds from their advanced threat detection modules."
 

Cons

"There is room for improvement in support. The response time could be faster."
"The tool’s multi-tenancy feature must be improved."
"The complexity of Cortex XSOAR has a trade-off with its versatility. The deployment requires integration and the development of integration modules."
"It doesn't offer automatic internet reports out of the box."
"The formats are not compatible, are readily not available, and are not readable."
"The price of the solution could be improved."
"The price of the solution could be lower."
"They should provide integration with machine learning platforms."
"Has some quirks."
"If the reporting gets improved then it would be better, but the product is running amazing as it is."
"The platform's technical support services and pricing need improvement."
"The on-premise version doesn't scale well for large companies."
"The interface within Threat Response could be made simpler."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's pricing needs improvement."
"The solution's cost is reasonable."
"The pricing is fair. The pricing reflects the value and feature set it offers."
"It is expensive."
"Palo Alto offers significant discounts to customers who purchase the products repeatedly."
"There is a yearly license required for this solution and it is expensive."
"From the cost perspective, I have heard that its price is a bit high as compared to other similar products."
"It is approx $10,000 or $20,000 per year for two user licenses."
"It's quite affordable to have it with this much functionality and ease to administrate."
"The way most big companies work with Proofpoint is that they try to tie everything into an enterprise license. I can't comment on the actual costs, however I do know that alternative solutions such as Abnormal Security can be much more expensive than Proofpoint Threat Response."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
842,388 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Healthcare Company
16%
Energy/Utilities Company
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
Even though customers often comment on the price, the potential savings come from managing a large number of security events with a limited number of analysts. This leads to economic advantages des...
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
The complexity of Cortex XSOAR has a trade-off with its versatility. The product can be tailored for each deployment to respond to specific customer needs, and this complexity may be seen as a down...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Proofpoint Threat Response?
I have a vague idea because I don't know what others are charging. But we felt that putting up with the pains and having to spend more time keeping it running than we expected is still better than ...
What needs improvement with Proofpoint Threat Response?
The platform's technical support services and pricing need improvement.
What is your primary use case for Proofpoint Threat Response?
We use the product to verify and manage emails sent and received through our Microsoft Exchange server, focusing on blocking potential spam emails.
 

Also Known As

Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cellcom Israel, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, esri, Cylance, Flatiron Health, Veeva, ADT Cybersecurity
University of Waterloo, Akorn, Fenwick and West LLP
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Palo Alto Networks, Splunk and others in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR). Updated: March 2025.
842,388 professionals have used our research since 2012.