Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR Reviews

The solution is user-friendly and easy to configure.

Palo Alto needs to develop more AI-centric products. Also, the price could be cheaper. It doesn’t have infinite connectors.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR for a couple of years.

The product is very stable.

5,000-7,000 users are using this solution.

Technical support is knowledgeable.

We used to work on the IBM XSOAR product, which was well-developed and competitive. The IBM component was strong, but Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR performed well. The main difference lies in the level of suggestions provided by the playbooks when analyzing logs. IBM's suggestions to be better.

The initial setup is simple. Your level of understanding significantly impacts the effectiveness of implementation. People may learn the hard way, especially post-implementation, highlighting the importance of a comprehensive experience.

I recommended Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR to a friend, and they have been using it to access and respond to issues in their data center. So far, there have been no complaints, not even worth mentioning. They also requested repairs through the platform.

The playbook is very good and user-friendly compared to IBM.

There are always things missing in some of the boxes. In some instances, there appears to be a leak. There are inconsistencies. Solutions like Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR or similar products are necessary.

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

In my company, it is not me but my team that is involved with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR. The tool is majorly useful for incident response and automation purposes.

Owing to the features of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, my team that operates within our company likes it.

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR lacks to offer SIEM functionalities currently. From an improvement perspective, I would like to see Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR offer SIEM functionalities.

In the future, I would like to see more automation functionalities.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR for nearly two months.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. My team knows about the stability of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, and to date, I haven't heard anything bad about the product.

It is a scalable solution.

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is a tool that is used only by me and my team in our company. The tool is mainly used by only two people in my company.

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR's partner, with whom my company deals, helps us whenever needed.

My company did not make any payments towards the licensing costs attached to the product since we were only using its pilot version.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

We use Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR for several areas of security automation, such as phishing, investigating, mitigating, the detection of impossible travel, and consolidating threat information for our internal systems.

It reduces manual interactions of security analysts. Before they had to check on three, or four different websites to see if something was good or bad. Now, Cortex does all of that for us.

It is very easy to use.

It has an extensive list of integrations that are available out of the box which makes it easy to start.

I would love to see more flexibility on what we can display and design on the dashboards.

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR has been active for six months. 

We are always on the latest version.

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is pretty stable.

It offers some architecture recommendations to make it really scalable if you choose.

For example, hot standby, bond standby, clustering, and breaking out components in dedicated servers. You can go wild if you want to go wild, but we wanted to keep it easy and stable.

Pretty much network security and SOC are the main users. I believe that we are licensed for 20 users.

We are definitely extensively using this solution. We are currently training many additional teams to be self-sufficient in usage. The usage will increase more and more.

With Palo Alto technical support, if you get to the right people, you get an answer very quickly. 

What I like about the Cortex team is that they have a dedicated select center where you can get service in minutes and that's extremely helpful.

Overall, I am satisfied with the technical support.

We evaluated two or three other vendors. 

We are a very big Palo Alto shop and we needed to have some Palo Alto features, which are implemented now in Cortex. We are pretty much guided in that direction for some of the security features we need for our firewalls.

I would say the initial setup was really straightforward. 

You need to be a little bit aware of Linux unless you buy the hosted version, then you don't need to know anything about it. If you decide you want to run it yourself, you should have some Linux skills because it's a Docker framework on Linux. Knowing a bit about that is handy.

It was up and running in half a day.

It only requires one person to maintain this solution. I do it myself along with many other tasks. In a larger environment, you split into two teams, OS maintenance and application maintenance.

We had help from Palo Alto SE resource for the PoC, but the setup was completed on our own.

We have a concurrent user license. 

The licensing is a pretty high price for a user license per year.

The base product is very cheap, you can even get it for free, but the fee per user is expensive. It is approx $10,000 or $20,000 per year for two user licenses.

It's a great product, although it might become very pricey if you need several user licenses.

They need to automate everything to reduce the number of user licenses needed. If it is an automated workflow, you don't need to be licensed.

If Cortex sends an email asking a user to say yes or no, you don't need a license for that user. You just need a user license if you want to improve what Cortex does in terms of workbooks, cases, and more.

We evaluated Splunk for six months and decided against it three to six months ago.

Have a very good understanding of what you want to automate. Define the process and make sure the integrations you need are available out of the box.

I would also suggest starting simple. Try easy use cases first and until you feel confident before you get into more complex use cases.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR a nine out of ten.

The SOC team needs the tool to understand the network and determine why an incident happens. The tool helps understand user behavior and helps with threat hunting.

The solution has a lot of information, like playbooks and incidents. It goes really deep. The vendor provides training, knowledge bases, workshops, and webinars. The product can automate security tasks. Playbooks are the most beneficial feature. We can create a playbook. We can get visibility on incidents.

We can also analyze user behavior and understand whether it is a true positive or a false positive. We have so many false positives these days in security, so it's nice when we can put things in the block list. We can perform investigations. The product can be integrated with third-party tools.

The solution is complicated to learn. Customers find it difficult to learn how the solution works. We need professionals to learn and understand how the tool works to expand it further. Our customers want to see more use cases. They want to have more facilitations and more visibility on how it works. We need more skilled people inside and outside the team to understand how it works. It’s difficult to find skilled people to understand how the tool works.

The solution is suitable for enterprise businesses.

We can send an email to the online support portal. We can contact Palo Alto engineers immediately and open a ticket. The engineers will take care of the issue depending on the severity level of the ticket.

Positive

The initial setup is really easy. We just have to order it. When we have the tool, someone from Palo Alto will provide us with the account information. After that, we must set up the users, customers, and resellers. We can do onboarding immediately. The deployment takes one or two days.

Whether the product is cheap or expensive depends on the company and how much they are willing to spend on security. Nowadays, security is important. The solution is not suitable for small businesses. It is better suited for medium and enterprise businesses because it starts with 200 endpoints.

SentinelOne is an endpoint protection tool. However, Palo Alto gives us more security features.

I work with a distributor. I recommend the product to my customers. I'm really satisfied with the tool. It's a very nice tool. It can work and give us what we need. We just need to be patient and learn how it works. The incidents can be handled very easily. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for network inspection.

The solution works well.

It’s easy to install.

It’s stable.

The solution can scale as needed.

The stability could be better.

The integration could be better. Cortex, for example, does not work with iPhone.

I’ve been using the solution for less than one year.

Right now, it’s been stable for us. We may consider something from Microsoft in the future. It’s possible it could be more stable.

The solution is quite scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

At the moment, we don’t actually get support from Palo Alto as we’ve never needed any help. I can’t say how helpful or responsive they would be.

We’ve also worked with CrowdStrike. We switched as we weren’t happy with their detection capabilities.

The installation is very easy to set up. It’s not overly complex or difficult.

The deployment took less than a week. I recall we had it up and running within a couple of days.

In our case, we went to a consultant for installation assistance. However, a company might likely be able to handle it on its own.

I can’t speak to the exact cost of the solution.

This is a SaaS product.

I’d rate the solution nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is customization and integration with Microsoft infrastructure.

Its agility and scalability are valuable.

Customization and performance can be improved. For example, some formats were incompatible when integrating, and they said we needed to work with the vendor to fix this issue because some logs that AVA logs were not compatible, and it did not readily recognize the format. Most of the time, I heard this as feedback. The formats are not compatible, are readily not available, and are not readable. Then we had to work it and write it manually.

We have been using the solution for over five years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Internally, there are around ten to 12 people who use it. However, I am unsure of the exact number of external users.

The solution is priced reasonably.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. The solution is good, but its performance and customization can be improved. I advise new users to understand their use cases. For example, suppose somebody is starting with highly customizable options and wants more agility to go to a micro level. In that case, I will still recommend people start with XSOAR, understand the environment, and then go to Sentinel. But it could also be done differently. It depends on the company's objective, so if you look at it as we started with Cortex a couple of years before. And now, looking forward and at compelling factors, we are moving to Microsoft. 

Our company uses the solution for security management and threat response. 

Many different playbooks are available and can be customized. 

Integrations with other applications are challenging and need to be improved. 

Reports or issues are often duplicated. 

The solution requires DV but does not support open-source DV elastic searches. 

I have been using the solution for seven months. 

The solution has stability issues from the performance side and often duplicates reports or issues.

The solution is not a Palo Alto product so technical support is inadequate. 

There is not a big focus on support for the solution so it takes a lot of time to receive responses for issues. 

The setup might not be easy because it requires official customers. 

Our company received technical support during installation.

The solution is based on an annual licensing model that is expensive. 

The solution is a good product that would be even better if technical support is improved and prices are discounted. 

Support is very important because there is a lot of follow up after implementations to properly manage changes and issues. 

I rate the solution a six out of ten. 

We are using Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR for automation.

The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR are its overall track record and features that fit our use case.

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve the Panorama feature. We had to turn it off because it was not working properly.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR for approximately six months.

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is a stable solution.

The scalability of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is fine for what we are using it for.

We have our SecOps department of user 50 people that are using the solution for alerts. We plan to increase usage in the future.

The support from Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve. However, a lot of the support is poor.

We have three people in the security operations that do the maintenance and support of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is comparable to other solutions in the market.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR a six out of ten.