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

Cortex XSIAM vs Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
5.4
Cortex XSIAM offers significant ROI and reduced staffing needs, though some businesses await full financial assessments.
Sentiment score
8.5
Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline boosts productivity and efficiency through reduced troubleshooting, improved security visibility, and optimized resource management.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.9
Cortex XSIAM customer support varies, with mixed reviews ranging from inadequate responses to helpful, efficient resolutions across different tiers.
Sentiment score
6.5
Customer service for Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline is mixed, with some praising it while others find it lacking in direct assistance.
It is ineffective in terms of responding to basic queries and addressing future requirements.
The Palo Alto support team is fully responsive and helpful.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
Cortex XSIAM scales easily for enterprises, rated highly for scalability, despite integration reliance concerns, supporting numerous assets and users.
Sentiment score
7.3
Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline scales well in cloud environments but may face challenges with on-premise scalability and outdated hardware.
Without proper integration, scaling up with more servers is meaningless.
Cortex XSIAM is highly scalable.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
Cortex XSIAM is highly stable, cloud-based, and dependable, with minimal downtime, excellent reliability ratings, and rare intervention needs.
Sentiment score
8.2
Users consistently rate Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline highly for its stability, with minimal issues reported over a year of use.
The product was easy to install and set up and worked right.
Overall, Cortex XSIAM is stable.
 

Room For Improvement

Cortex XSIAM needs improvements in integration, performance, usability, and support services, with enhanced automation and developer-friendliness.
Gigamon needs better security, traffic inspection, improved GUI, increased capacity, better filtering, and easier cloud setup, with faster hardware delivery.
In terms of incident response automation, it is quite poor due to the lack of integration with all security tools, making manual intervention necessary.
Cortex XSIAM needs improvements in terms of data onboarding, parsers, and third-party integration supports.
Cortex XSIAM is pretty expensive, and the licensing process is not very comfortable compared to CrowdStrike.
 

Setup Cost

Cortex XSIAM is competitively priced compared to Splunk and Microsoft Sentinel but involves complex licensing and additional costs.
<p>Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline's pricing is considered high but varies by equipment needs, with competitive alternatives available.</p>
The product is very expensive.
The first impression is that XSIAM would be more expensive than others we tried.
The licensing cost of Cortex XSIAM is more or less the same as Splunk, making it quite expensive compared to other tools.
 

Valuable Features

Cortex XSIAM provides advanced threat detection with machine learning, seamless third-party integration, and comprehensive network and endpoint protection.
Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline improves firewall performance and enhances network traffic analysis with features like deduplication and encryption.
Its signature-less subscriptions and robust detection power stand out in improving threat detection.
Cortex XSIAM is able to detect abnormal behavior of malicious code and subsequently block it.
One of the valued aspects of the product is its use of artificial intelligence to detect security vulnerabilities.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cortex XSIAM
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
14th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) (6th), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (7th)
Gigamon Deep Observability ...
Ranking in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
47th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability (41st), Event Monitoring (9th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (29th), Web Application Firewall (WAF) (32nd), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (26th), Network Packet Broker (NPB) (1st), Network Detection and Response (NDR) (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) category, the mindshare of Cortex XSIAM is 2.9%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline is 0.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
 

Featured Reviews

AKASH MAJUMDER - PeerSpot reviewer
Incident response times have significantly reduced with efficient device integration and log parsing capabilities
Cortex XSIAM needs improvements in terms of data onboarding, parsers, and third-party integration supports. Additionally, a future update request is to enable tagging of endpoints in groups, similar to a feature available in Cortex XDR. The AI analytics need fine-tuning because some use cases are not working from my side.
LeonardoAlves - PeerSpot reviewer
Improved the capability to analyze the environment and network problems with easy setup
It improved the capability to analyze the environment and network problems. It also helped streamline your security and performance monitoring The application I use is a script. My environment is a mix of technologies. I have many passionate people in my network who are on a journey in…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions are best for your needs.
850,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cortex XSIAM?
It is an effective solution in terms of performance and functionalities.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cortex XSIAM?
The licensing cost of Cortex XSIAM is more or less the same as Splunk, making it quite expensive compared to other tools. There are additional expenses for more functionalities.
What needs improvement with Cortex XSIAM?
Cortex XSIAM needs improvements in terms of data onboarding, parsers, and third-party integration supports. Additionally, a future update request is to enable tagging of endpoints in groups, simila...
What do you like most about Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline?
The most valuable feature for improving network visibility with Gigamon is the packet filtering capability.
What needs improvement with Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline?
The challenge is monitoring the cloud network. In on-premises environments, monitoring is straightforward, as I can verify all packets and communications. However, due to the way access tools and p...
What is your primary use case for Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline?
It improved the capability to analyze the environment and network problems. It also helped streamline your security and performance monitoring.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Gigamon, GigaSecure
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Amica Insurance, College of William & Mary, Gamma, IntercontinentalExchange, OppenheimerFunds
Find out what your peers are saying about Cortex XSIAM vs. Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.