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

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR vs ThreatQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Palo Alto Networks Cortex X...
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
44
Ranking in other categories
SOC as a Service (2nd)
ThreatQ
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
23rd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is 13.1%, down from 15.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatQ is 0.9%, down from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

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.
reviewer2384535 - PeerSpot reviewer
Improves the threat intelligence gathering process, but it is not user-friendly
The tool is not user-friendly. It is not beginner-friendly. It would be very difficult for a beginner to learn the tool. It will take at least two months to get familiar with it. Building the playbook is a little difficult for a beginner. The vendor must simplify the tool and make it user-friendly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The drag-and-drop interface enables analysts with no programming knowledge to create playbooks easily."
"The automation part and the playbook creation part are awesome. The way it is responding to the customers and incidents is also very good. In the SOC environment, I guess it will carry out around 50% of the work."
"The automation is excellent."
"The product is quite easy to use."
"It’s easy to install."
"The pricing is very good."
"I have no complaints about Cortex's stability."
"They have a portal where you can find any kind of integration that you need."
"The reporting services are great. With reporting services, if you have customers that just visit a URL you can see the result - including why it's blocked and how and how the URL was first recognized as malicious."
"Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy."
 

Cons

"I would love to see more flexibility on what we can display and design on the dashboards."
"The configuration of the solution could improve it is difficult."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve the Panorama feature. We had to turn it off because it was not working properly."
"The solution requires DV but does not support open-source DV elastic searches."
"XSOAR could have more integration options."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve the look, feel, and management of the cloud console. Additionally, the user could be more easily integrated."
"Previously, when Demisto was, there was a community edition; we could use it, reinstall it, and customize it. Since Palo Alto took over, it has become more financially oriented. It's business, but they could offer a pro model and a lighter model for different needs."
"The user interface could be a bit better."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's pricing needs improvement."
"The solution is expensive."
"It is expensive."
"The pricing is fair. The pricing reflects the value and feature set it offers."
"There is a perception that it is priced very high compared to other solutions."
"The solution is based on an annual licensing model that is expensive."
"The solution's cost is reasonable."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is expensive."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Educational Organization
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?
I do not know about the pricing as it was handled by the salespeople.
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
Creating complex playbooks using coding languages, such as Python, could be easier. Sometimes the process becomes tedious and requires manual tasks.
What do you like most about ThreatQ?
Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy.
What needs improvement with ThreatQ?
The tool is not user-friendly. It is not beginner-friendly. It would be very difficult for a beginner to learn the tool. It will take at least two months to get familiar with it. Building the playb...
What is your primary use case for ThreatQ?
We used the solution for threat mapping and managing IoCs.
 

Also Known As

Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cellcom Israel, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, esri, Cylance, Flatiron Health, Veeva, ADT Cybersecurity
Radar, Bitdefender, Crowdstrike, FireEye, IBM Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR vs. ThreatQ and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.