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

AWS Security Hub vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR comparison

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
6.7
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (1st), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st)
AWS Security Hub
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
7th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (11th)
Palo Alto Networks Cortex X...
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
51
Ranking in other categories
SOC as a Service (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Torq is 3.8%, down from 5.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of AWS Security Hub is 5.7%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is 8.7%, down from 10.8% 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 XSOAR8.7%
Torq3.8%
AWS Security Hub5.7%
Other81.8%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

AD
Solutions Architect at Swimlane
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.
Sricharan R - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Application Security Engineer Iv at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Security automation has transformed incident workflows and now reduces response time dramatically
I think the areas of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR that could be improved are mainly in UX. We have communicated with the vendor team about this, but they are prioritizing product functionality over usability because most target customers are technical and understand a primitive UI. They face difficulties in implementing UI changes as their team is stretched. Thus, the UI/UX of the tool needs significant improvement. There are plans on their roadmap, but a lot remains to be done. Parts of the tool run on an older framework, causing slowness. Usability is a broader issue than features alone. This usability problem is common in many cybersecurity tools, unlike customer-facing applications. Some integrations have speed issues and might not function seamlessly with different upstream configurations, requiring manual updates. These are the main pain points we encountered, particularly with UI/UX, integration speed, and the usability of certain inbuilt playbooks.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Since we started working with Torq, I am handling much fewer alerts, it is becoming really easy for me to handle an alert, I have all the information that I need, I do not need to connect to different vendors to receive this information, and the main thing I got from Torq is time, which now helps me to build another automated system and learn."
"As an analyst, it has demonstrated potential to reduce workforce requirements and time needed for related activities."
"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."
"Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes."
"Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq."
"What I appreciate most about Torq is that it is an essential part of our system."
"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"Torq has exceeded expectations by delivering workflows in a timely and lower effort manner than XSOAR, and it meets all my needs while saving a ton of time and targeting $600,000 saved this year, which is a substantial amount of money."
"The solution is very good at detection and providing real-time alerts."
"I rate Security Hub ten out of ten for stability."
"I really like the seamless integration with the AWS account structure. It can even be made mandatory as part of the landing zone. These are great features. And there's a single pane of glass for the entire account."
"The most valuable feature of AWS Security Hub is the ability to track when monitoring is not enabled on any of my resources."
"Though I'm still in the initial evaluation phase for AWS Security Hub, I would recommend it to others because it has good features."
"AWS Security Hub brings many features into one table that is quite useful, and the app team finds it easier to see what is missing."
"If someone asks your team how vulnerable or compliant you are with your infrastructure, you can show findings from AWS Security Hub that demonstrate a ninety-plus percentage compliance rate."
"The platform has valuable features for security."
"The orchestration in XSOAR is significantly easier compared to other SOAR tools I've used."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR has had a huge impact on our organization's mean time to resolution for incidents, improving the security SOC operations efficiency tremendously, by more than 80% to 90%."
"The automation is excellent."
"The pricing is very good."
"We've had a very positive experience."
"We use the solution to automate our SIEM tools and incidents."
"From the security team's standpoint, the solution has improved our organization's overall cybersecurity."
"The most valuable feature is automation, as there is a huge variety of automation that can help any team and there is a threat model."
 

Cons

"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."
"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true."
"Regarding the pricing of Torq, I would say it is expensive."
"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."
"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."
"It was able to capture data but was unable to differentiate between the agent hostname we are using and the hostname that resides on the back end of the Internet."
"I wish Torq's AI assistant for building templated workflows from scratch worked better; when you start with a blank slate, asking AI to help you build or template the workflow out does not go well."
"The user interface, graphs, and dashboards of the solution could improve in the future. They are not very sophisticated and could use an update."
"Many findings are too generic or irrelevant to the environment, which can lead to false positives."
"It is not flexible for multi-cloud environments."
"AWS Security Hub should improve the time it takes to update. It takes a long period of time when updating. It can take 24 hours sometimes to update. Additionally, when integrating this solution with more security tools, takes time."
"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."
"The solution should be easier to learn and use"
"AWS Security Hub cannot scale up to multiple different cloud environments; it only works for AWS."
"The support must be quicker."
"It was expensive, making it essential for the customer to evaluate whether ROI is coming from the business model, as they are also acting as a SOC provider."
"There should be an on-premise version available for customers to have different choices."
"I think they should increase their collaboration base."
"The solution is not a Palo Alto product so technical support is inadequate."
"The solution is complicated to learn."
"The platform’s setup procedures could be streamlined compared to one of its competitors."
"The tool’s multi-tenancy feature must be improved."
"The dashboard could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Security Hub is not an expensive solution."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"There are multiple subscription models, like yearly, monthly, and packaged."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is comparable to other solutions in the market."
"The solution's cost is reasonable."
"Palo Alto offers significant discounts to customers who purchase the products repeatedly."
"The solution's pricing needs improvement."
"There is a perception that it is priced very high compared to other solutions."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is expensive."
"There is a yearly license required for this solution and it 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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
902,456 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
13%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business21
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise26
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?
I do not dislike anything about Torq because it has satisfied all of our use cases and requirements. We contacted sup...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
Initially, we were using Slack for small automations, such as creating pipelines or shutting down servers. For exampl...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
I have been working for five years with experience in the IT field. Torq is very good. It manages everything. I would...
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?
Comparing pricing to Micro Focus, they were offering bundles, making it free with their SIEM. For customers, it is ze...
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
Regarding areas for improvement in Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, I want to highlight one concern about playbook cr...
What is your primary use case for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
My primary use cases for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR are malware incidents, specifically phishing-related inciden...
 

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: June 2026.
902,456 professionals have used our research since 2012.