Top 10 Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus Alternatives

3.9 out of 5

5 reviews
83% willing to recommend

102 followers

Top Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include CrowdStrike Falcon, Recorded Future, and VirusTotal. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

Palo Alto Networks Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Palo Alto Networks, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.

Get the alternatives report

CrowdStrike Falcon

4.3 out of 5

CrowdStrike Falcon

4.3 out of 5

CrowdStrike Falcon is noted for its real-time protection, robust detection capabilities, and ease of integration. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus offers advanced threat intelligence and automated responses. CrowdStrike Falcon has competitive pricing and straightforward deployment, while Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus justifies higher costs with superior features and ROI.

Download CrowdStrike Falcon vs. Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus Report

Pricing

CrowdStrike Falcon's setup cost is described as moderate, while Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is noted for higher initial setup expenses.

View comparison

Pricing

CrowdStrike Falcon's setup cost is described as moderate, while Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is noted for higher initial setup expenses.

Recorded Future

4.2 out of 5

Recorded Future

4.2 out of 5

Recorded Future is noted for its extensive threat database and real-time alerting. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus excels in integration with other Palo Alto products and automated threat analysis. Recorded Future offers broader intelligence, while AutoFocus provides integrated responses and advanced analytics despite higher costs.

Download Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus vs. Recorded Future Report

Pricing

Recorded Future has a higher setup cost compared to Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus, which offers a more economical initial investment.

View comparison

Pricing

Recorded Future has a higher setup cost compared to Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus, which offers a more economical initial investment.

VirusTotal

4.4 out of 5

VirusTotal

4.4 out of 5

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus offers advanced threat intelligence and seamless integration with Palo Alto Networks products. In comparison, VirusTotal provides versatile malware analysis via a crowdsourced threat database. AutoFocus excels in integration and customer service, while VirusTotal is appreciated for its cost-efficiency and detailed scanning features.

Download Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus vs. VirusTotal Report

Pricing

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus has a higher setup cost compared to VirusTotal. VirusTotal offers a more affordable setup, making it a cost-effective choice for users.

View comparison

Pricing

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus has a higher setup cost compared to VirusTotal. VirusTotal offers a more affordable setup, making it a cost-effective choice for users.

ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP)

4.2 out of 5

ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP)

4.2 out of 5

ThreatConnect's extensive integration capabilities and collaborative environment attract tech buyers seeking a comprehensive suite. In comparison, AutoFocus's advanced threat analytics and seamless integration with Palo Alto Networks' ecosystem make it suitable for those needing sophisticated threat detection despite a higher price.

Download Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus vs. ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) Report

Pricing

ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) has higher setup costs compared to Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus.

View comparison

Pricing

ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) has higher setup costs compared to Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus.

Anomali

3.5 out of 5

Anomali

3.5 out of 5

Anomali offers real-time threat intelligence and easy integration for seamless deployment, appealing to budget-sensitive users. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus provides advanced analytics and automated categorization, ideal for those investing in deep threat identification despite a higher cost.

Download Anomali vs. Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus Report

Pricing

Anomali’s setup cost is generally higher compared to Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus, which offers more cost-effective initial pricing.

View comparison

Pricing

Anomali’s setup cost is generally higher compared to Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus, which offers more cost-effective initial pricing.

IBM X-Force Exchange

4.1 out of 5

IBM X-Force Exchange

4.1 out of 5

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus excels in threat detection and detailed analysis, with competitive pricing. In comparison, IBM X-Force Exchange offers a vast database, real-time feeds, and collaborative features, making it appealing. A tech buyer might choose Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus for smoother deployment or IBM X-Force Exchange for its comprehensive features and collaboration.

Download IBM X-Force Exchange vs. Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus Report

Pricing

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus has high setup costs, while IBM X-Force Exchange offers lower initial setup costs, highlighting a significant difference.

View comparison

Pricing

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus has high setup costs, while IBM X-Force Exchange offers lower initial setup costs, highlighting a significant difference.

Cisco Threat Grid

3.8 out of 5

Cisco Threat Grid

3.8 out of 5

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus excels in threat intelligence and integration with other Palo Alto products. In comparison, Cisco Threat Grid provides advanced malware analysis and automatic updates. AutoFocus requires minimal deployment time, while Threat Grid offers high ROI for complex needs. AutoFocus is cost-effective; Threat Grid is scalable.

Download Cisco Threat Grid vs. Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus Report

Pricing

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is known for a higher initial setup cost, while Cisco Threat Grid offers a more flexible and lower-priced setup fee.

View comparison

Pricing

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is known for a higher initial setup cost, while Cisco Threat Grid offers a more flexible and lower-priced setup fee.

Related categories

Threat Intelligence Platforms

Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)

Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)