No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

AWS Security Hub vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 2024

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

Torq
Sponsored
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (1st), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st)
AWS Security Hub
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
8th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (17th)
Palo Alto Networks Cortex X...
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
SOC as a Service (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Torq is 3.5%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of AWS Security Hub is 6.0%, down from 8.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is 8.8%, down from 9.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR8.8%
Torq3.5%
AWS Security Hub6.0%
Other81.7%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

AD
Solutions Architect at ProArch
Automation has streamlined multi-tenant SOC workflows and improves alert handling efficiency
Although the reporting within Torq is not that great, we did ask for many features regarding reporting in Torq, but due to some platform constraints, they could not make the whole dataset available for us to be used in reporting. Except for that, we used some basic reporting. When I used Torq, it was indeed in the early stages of AI capabilities. Only a few customers were allowed to use it, and we were among them. It functioned well as long as we summarized the data properly. If you input garbage, you would get garbage out. Thus, we had to do significant fine-tuning regarding what data context we provided to the AI orchestrator to get meaningful results. In terms of Torq's unified platform approach to AI SOC automation and case management compared to managing multiple point solutions across my security stack, I find it case-centric. The unified view in case management is good since it provides clarity, although there are limitations regarding how many items in case management can be modified at once. Bulk operations are very limited, potentially due to their back-end database or data retrieval processes that can be improved. Regarding improvements for Torq, when we were onboarded, there were aspects we were uncertain about, such as the number of cases that could be generated, what data we could bring in, how many clients we could onboard, and similar concerns. Initially, we also lacked clarity about the number of playbooks or workflows we could build. Different triggers like system triggers, case-based triggers, and others can be employed without restrictions, but when it comes to on-demand and scheduled jobs, there is a limitation based on the subscription and pricing tier that notably caps the number of workflows we can create. No bulk editing across cases was one issue, along with limited filtering related to single grouping constraints. Additionally, the out-of-the-box case templates provided require substantial modifications before they become usable. There is also a feature in the cases for notes that cannot be searched. They are only visible through the UI, which is another area for improvement. The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially. I am not sure if new customers are made aware of this. It seems that workflows revolving around cases hinder functionality outside of case management, as we have many use cases needing on-demand triggers and schedules for functions like reporting or polling devices. Creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers. While they facilitate optimization and scaling, the support received tends to be very basic. Improvements can be made in that area as well.
Karthik Ekambaram - PeerSpot reviewer
Director at Scybers
Has helped identify misconfigurations and prioritize risks but lacks multi-cloud support and deeper integration features
AWS Security Hub cannot scale up to multiple different cloud environments; it only works for AWS. There are other products in the market for CSPM that can give you multi-cloud environment misconfigurations, even Microsoft for that matter. Regarding the integration of AWS Security Hub with third-party tools, I am not certain whether we can integrate them, but there is no need to do so. However, AWS Security Hub cannot integrate with other cloud providers, so it only supports the AWS environment. The compliance checks within AWS Security Hub are good, but we don't use them much. We utilize compliance frameworks such as CIS compliance frameworks and ISO 27017 framework, which are beneficial, but it can improve in other areas too, such as including NIST and other frameworks beyond just ISO and CIS. Improvements can be applicable for scalability, particularly on integration with multi-cloud environments, and compliance frameworks can be added for more variety as well. The unified dashboard in AWS Security Hub is adequate; I cannot say it is exceptional, but the content available in the dashboards is satisfactory for now.
EricRise - PeerSpot reviewer
Noc Network Engineer at a outsourcing company with 51-200 employees
Automation playbooks have reduced soc noise and now streamline daily incident response
To improve Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, there can be a learning curve to it. It is not a very user-friendly product; it is complex. It handles debugs and automation playbooks. You have to really spend some time dedicated to learning the product, scripting, and acquiring your certifications on it. Cost is another item as well. That can be quite significant; it does depend on other tools for EDR, whether you are using Palo Alto's XDR system or any number of third-party products for that. There are some reporting and logging restrictions and limitations. Some of those are going to be constraints, including window size limits. Database use with it has limited scalability for that type of application.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"With Torq, I automate actions while achieving SLA compliance and streamline alert investigation processes much better."
"According to positive outcomes, Torq reduced manual work and made incident response more efficient."
"Under one SOC tool in Torq, analysts get to know everything within the context of an alert or incident they are working on, and this ability to view the whole picture within Torq is one of the major breakthroughs and best offerings of Torq."
"Torq's unified platform approach to AI, SOAR, automation, and case management is superior compared to my experience managing multiple point solutions."
"What I liked the most about Torq is the actual workflow builder, which is really great because they offer a lot of features and convenience features that are useful for any automation engineer."
"Torq has impacted my organization positively by allowing us to earn time and invest resources in other projects that are more meaningful and more interesting, pushing deeper into what a SOC is, and building our processes."
"Torq has helped a lot regarding SOC analyst efficiency."
"Easily integrates with third-party tools"
"The advantage is that it is cloud-native, and we do not need to install agents or sensors to find findings."
"The best feature of AWS Security Hub is that you can get compliance or your cloud's current security posture."
"Cloudposse is a valuable feature as it guarantees my security."
"One of the most effective features of AWS Security Hub is the easy access to a dashboard with a ready-to-use security score."
"Security Hub provides insightful information about what is running and where there might be weaknesses."
"Though I'm still in the initial evaluation phase for AWS Security Hub, I would recommend it to others because it has good features."
"Currently, our organization utilizes AWS for various purposes, including SaaS (Software as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service), and hosting applications in the cloud. We develop our applications and use AWS services as a platform for basic functions and secondary development needs. Additionally, we rely on PaaS for accounting services. Approximately, 50% of our applications are hosted in the cloud environment, making it a significant part of our current setup."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is a good product with enhanced and efficient playbooks, as demonstrated during our use case simulations."
"For organizations that are stable with their security operations, like those with around 50 members in their security team running full-phased operations 24/7, Cortex is necessary."
"The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR are the remote controller from the workstation that can execute commands and isolate the systems outside of the network. Only the system with an internet connection can execute the task because the main console is in the cloud."
"Its agility and scalability are valuable."
"It is a scalable solution. I would rate scalability a ten out of ten."
"The set of playbooks that XSOAR already has inside it is really huge, and it is also great for a lot of informational security managers and engineers that can just choose what they need and not have to create anything from scratch."
"It’s easy to install."
"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."
 

Cons

"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."
"The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially, and creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers."
"Torq can probably use more ML and look at what can be closed and what cannot be closed in terms of data classification."
"Regarding the pricing of Torq, I would say it is expensive."
"Torq can be improved by adding some more features, such as adding more automation and providing a no-code option so I don't have to code for everything."
"Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true."
"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"Additionally, the documentation for Torq is not very clear. Most of the information is presented in videos, which are not ideal for reading; there are mostly paragraphs and other text-based content."
"Right now, there are some difficulties we're facing with AWS Security Hub, and we need our central team to mitigate the issues."
"AWS Security Hub cannot scale up to multiple different cloud environments; it only works for AWS."
"The solution is not wholly self-sufficient."
"It's not user-friendly. Too much going on, too many unnecessary findings, not very visual. You can't do much compared to other similar tools that are cheaper and better."
"From an improvement perspective, there is a need to add more compliance since, right now, AWS Security Hub only provides four to five compliances to control the tool."
"Security Hub is currently not worth investing in, as it requires more configurations and integration with other services to work effectively."
"However, the sheer number of services can be overwhelming when implementing something new."
"There is room for improvement in implementing AI capabilities. It would be beneficial for Security Hub to implement preventative measures and to directly apply recommendations instead of just suggesting them."
"The price of the solution could be lower."
"The negative aspect of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is the price; cost-wise, it is a bit higher."
"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."
"For building automation, there is not a lot of good documentation. The documentation is there, but it is not very good from my perspective."
"Another area I can suggest is the searching or reporting feature where you have to write a query, which is definitely good for searching your incidents."
"While I personally appreciate this approach, I have observed that junior analysts on my team find it difficult to build playbooks."
"The solution is not a Palo Alto product so technical support is inadequate."
"We need a little hands-on experience to install the solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The pricing is fine. It is not an expensive tool."
"AWS Security Hub is not an expensive tool. I would consider it to be a cheap solution. AWS Security Hub follows the PAYG pricing model, meaning you will have to pay for whatever you use."
"Security Hub is not an expensive solution."
"The price of AWS Security Hub is average compared to other solutions."
"The price of the solution is not very competitive but it is reasonable."
"AWS Security Hub's pricing is pretty reasonable."
"The cost is based on the number of compliances, core checks, and services required, and for more than 10,000 recommendations, the charge is just one dollar."
"There are multiple subscription models, like yearly, monthly, and packaged."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could be reduced. We are always looking for a discount. There is an annual license needed to use this solution."
"The solution's cost is reasonable."
"When I first looked at Demisto, it had a price tag of $250,000 but when we finally purchased it, it was $345,000."
"The pricing is fair. The pricing reflects the value and feature set it offers."
"From the cost perspective, I have heard that its price is a bit high as compared to other similar products."
"The solution's cost is high."
"It's cheaper compared to its competitors."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
912,069 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user186927 - PeerSpot reviewer
Director of Operations at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
Feb 16, 2015
Cybereason vs. Interset vs. SQRRL
Capture DB - they all use NoSQL db and hence solve the ad hoc query and 'go back in time' problem with current best of breed SIEM and DLP solutions that rely on real time analysis of incoming logs (and don't store them). This means deeper and quicker iterative threat analysis and assessment…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise11
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise32
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?
There are some bugs in Torq, of course. They can be present in data transformation, some UI debugging, and other area...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
My main use case for Torq is the automation of cyber security processes through a SOAR platform and APIs. A main exam...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
Regarding someone thinking about using Torq, I recommend looking into their provided academy to start working with th...
Which is better - Azure Sentinel or AWS Security Hub?
We like that Azure Sentinel does not require as much maintenance as legacy SIEMs that are on-premises. Azure Sentinel...
What needs improvement with AWS Security Hub?
I do not see any areas for improvement in AWS Security Hub itself, but the cost factor is something that is the main ...
What is your primary use case for AWS Security Hub?
AWS Security Hub is something I have used daily as it is a part of my job for cloud security purposes. If you are dea...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
We can quantify the reduction. It is more than sixty to seventy percent reduction in the MTTR, as per documents from ...
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
The negative aspect of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is the price; cost-wise, it is a bit higher. Other than enterp...
What is your primary use case for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
We are a partner for Palo Alto as a service provider. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is used as a SIEM solution or X...
 

Also Known As

No data available
SQRRL
Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Edmunds, Frame.io, GoDaddy, Realtor.com
Cellcom Israel, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, esri, Cylance, Flatiron Health, Veeva, ADT Cybersecurity
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Security Hub vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
912,069 professionals have used our research since 2012.