CRITICALSTART vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR comparison

Critical Start and Palo Alto Networks are both solutions in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category. Critical Start is ranked #25, while Palo Alto Networks is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.3. Critical Start holds a 1.3% mindshare in SOAR, compared to Palo Alto Networks’s 8.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Critical Start users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 92% of Palo Alto Networks users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 2024

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and CRITICALSTART compete in the security orchestration, automation, and response space. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR has a competitive edge due to its comprehensive feature set, whereas CRITICALSTART is recognized for ease of use and superior customer service.

Features: Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is equipped with powerful automation capabilities, extensive integration possibilities, and robust playbooks. It supports advanced collaboration tools and offers custom integration. CRITICALSTART is valued for its intuitive operation, efficient incident response, and the ability to manage incidents via mobile applications.

Room for Improvement: Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR can be complex and may benefit from more simplified integration processes, better customer training, and further stability enhancements. CRITICALSTART might improve by expanding its automation capabilities, providing more in-depth analytical tools, and improving performance speed in its user interface.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CRITICALSTART excels with streamlined deployment and exceptional customer service, facilitating an enhanced user experience. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR involves a more complex setup process due to its advanced capabilities, but it is supported by a robust service team.

Pricing and ROI: Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR typically has higher initial costs but offers long-term ROI with its advanced features. CRITICALSTART presents a more cost-effective option, emphasizing quick ROI through efficient problem resolution, potentially providing a preferable balance between cost and return based on budget considerations.

To learn more, read our detailed CRITICALSTART vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR Report (Updated: June 2026).

Buyer's Guide

CRITICALSTART vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR

June 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 909,099 peers since 2012

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

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Torq is 3.6%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CRITICALSTART is 1.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is 8.9%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR	8.9%
Torq	3.6%
CRITICALSTART	1.3%
Other	86.2%

Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)

Featured Reviews

AdityaDesai

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.

Read full review

Justin Hadley

Sr. Manager, Security Engineering at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees

The transparency of data in the platform is perfect: You see everything as they are seeing it

Their Zero Trust Analytics Platform (ZTAP) engine, which is kind of their correlation engine, is by far and away one of the best in the business. We can filter and utilize different lists to build out different alerts, such as, what to alert on and when not to alert. This engine helps reduce our number of alerts and false positives. The service's Trusted Behavior Registry helps the provider solve every alert. The way that they have it built out is very intelligent. The way every alert comes in, it gets triaged one direction or another. If it is already a false positive, then it is still getting addressed and reviewed on a regular cadence. Also, true positive alerts get escalated to the appropriate personnel. Its mobile app is great. The ability just to be able to quick reference and see what's coming in when you're on the move or go. You don't always need to have your computer or laptop handy, because you can operate it just from the mobile app. It can communicate with analysts, which is great. The mobile app is great at affecting the efficiency of our security operations. Those guys are using it throughout the day, whether that be at the office, home, or off hours. Typically, they triage from the mobile app. Then, if an escalation needs to be done on a computer, they will pull out a computer. We were on the original UI for a few years, so the updated UI has been a refreshing change. It has significantly more ability to filter and translate data, then load that data. It is rather intuitive to click through for some of our junior analysts or interns, especially as we are starting to onboard and teach them different aspects of the security operations team.

Read full review

Sricharan R

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"As an analyst, it has demonstrated potential to reduce workforce requirements and time needed for related activities."

"Torq has definitely changed the day-to-day experience for our security analysts, as they feel more excited and feel that Torq interface and workflow allow them to build things themselves."

"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 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."

"Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq."

"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."

"If I review about 100 vendors that I might work with, Torq is definitely in the top five that gave me personally investment back, just because every bit of effort I put into Torq eventually became a workflow that gave it back to me."

"Once I started to use the system and I saw the potential, it changed all of our work in IT."

More Torq pros

"The quick interaction between the agents is the most valuable feature. If we have questions, they're quick to answer. If we make a change to our system, they quickly make the changes that are necessary to filter the logs correctly."

"It is a comfort to know that there is a team of professionals backing you up, especially in an area that you don't feel 100 percent comfortable."

"My impression of the transparency of the data is that it has good detail. It allows you to see how many events have come in, how many of those events have made it down to their analysts to review, and then however many from their analysts to be able to close out, have been able to been escalated to us. It's a good metric that we can share with my management. They see the value of what the SOC is bringing on top of what my team is already doing."

"After a year of using the service, our expectations have been met in terms of services delivered on time, on budget, and on spec."

"From where we were prior to going into them, the service has increased our analysts’ efficiency to the point that they can focus on other areas of the business. It gives me the ability to allow analysts to do Level 3 and 4 work and stay out of the weeds of the alerts, where you tend to get alert fatigue. The service takes care of much of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 triage. It is more effective than what we had been used to, because it allows the filtering of Level 1 and Level 2 type alerts to be taken care of. This leaves less for us to handle, which is a good thing."

"Out of all the service providers I've had to work with over the years—I've been here six years—CRITICALSTART is my favorite to work with."

"The way that the user interface presents data enables our team to be able to make decisions significantly quicker, rather than have to dig into the details or go back to the original tools."

"This has been a positive experience and money well spent."

More CRITICALSTART pros

"The most valuable feature is automation."

"The playbook automation helped streamline my incident response time by removing delays from the human side and reducing the mean time to respond."

"The orchestration in XSOAR is significantly easier compared to other SOAR tools I've used."

"Palo Alto has gotten the investigators more presence to actually go in the report because being that the platform will email the investigator that it's been assigned to, now the investigators will jump in there and start going through the review process a lot quicker."

"I have no complaints about Cortex's stability."

"The drag-and-drop interface enables analysts with no programming knowledge to create playbooks easily."

"Cortex XSOAR's most valuable features are the playbooks, custom integration, the machine-learning model, and the layout, classifier, and mapper."

"I would rate the stability of Cortex XSOAR as nine out of ten."

More Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR pros

Cons

"Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true."

"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."

"Regarding stability, I have noticed some lagging, crashing, and downtime, which is one of my largest gripes."

"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."

"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."

"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."

"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."

More Torq cons

"It has frustrated us that they don't have a native Slack integration, because most things do now. That's something we've asked for, for years, and it just doesn't really seem like it's a priority."

"They could dig a little bit deeper into the Splunk alerts when they feel like they need to be escalated to us."

"The only thing I can think of that I would like to see, and I'm sure they could work this into a service pretty easily, is not only alerts on issues that are affecting my company, but some threat intelligence of a general nature on what's out there in the environment. That might be a nice add-in."

"They just did a user interface overhaul to the website portal that you use for troubleshooting tickets. The old one was fine. The new one is not intuitive and I hate it."

"The updated UI is actually pretty bad. Regarding the intuitiveness, it is fairly easy to use, but the responsiveness, on a scale of one to 10, is a one. It's really poor performance."

"The biggest room for improvement is not necessarily in their service or offering, but in the products that they support. I would like them to further their knowledge and ability to integrate with those tools. They have base integrations with everything, and we haven't come across anything. They should just continue to build on that API interface between their applications and other third-party consoles."

"In terms of responsiveness, when I open up an alert, sometimes it takes a bit of time to load. However, it only happened once or twice."

"The UI has become slower but it's not something I would call them out on."

More CRITICALSTART cons

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

"An improvement for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could be adding management of custom resources through Terraform or infrastructure as code, making it more scalable from an end-user perspective."

"The product can be tailored for each deployment to respond to specific customer needs, and this complexity may be seen as a downside."

"Palo Alto needs to develop more AI-centric products."

"It doesn't offer automatic internet reports out of the box."

"It is been decommissioned by Palo Alto."

"One area for improvement I see in Cortex XSOAR is the cost."

"Previously, when Demisto was, there was a community edition; we could use it, reinstall it, and customize it. Since Palo Alto took over, it has become more financially oriented. It's business, but they could offer a pro model and a lighter model for different needs."

More Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"The pricing of other services was so insane that they weren't even an option."

"The pricing has always been competitive. They have always been good to us. They will make it a fight. They don't try to hide anything; it's always been fully transparent and well-worth what we pay for it."

"It costs a lot for what we felt comfortable to spend."

"I've told CRITICALSTART that I think the managed service they provide is cheaper than it should be. It's a really good deal."

"There are contractual penalties if their SLAs are not met. This commitment was very important in our decision to go with this service, because not having downtime is extremely important to us. The providers has not missed an SLA in the 18 months that I have worked with them."

"Overall, for what I'm paying for it, and the benefit I'm getting out of it, it is right where it needs to be, if not a little bit in my favor. For what it costs me to actually have this service, I could afford one internal person to do that job, but now I have a team of 10 or more who are doing that job, and they don't sleep because they work shifts."

"As far as the expense goes, it's very competitive pricing and the services you get are almost like you have a person on your team."

"The solution is expensive."

"The solution's cost is high."

"The solution is a bit on the expensive side."

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

"When I first looked at Demisto, it had a price tag of $250,000 but when we finally purchased it, it was $345,000."

"Palo Alto offers significant discounts to customers who purchase the products repeatedly."

"There is a perception that it is priced very high compared to other solutions."

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

More Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

909,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

13%

Construction Company

10%

Outsourcing Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

Construction Company

12%

Outsourcing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Outsourcing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	4

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	27
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	32

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?

The only thing is more out-of-the-box integrations. Torq already has a lot of supported integrations and adding new o...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Torq?

For Torq, first of all, it's a hyperautomation and AI assistant usage. Our EDR SentinelOne is integrated in Torq and ...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Torq?

I think I have told everything about Torq that I can share at this stage, but I am still in the process of learning t...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is that I was just a consum...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR can be improved if it can include AI modules within Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR a...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?

My main use case for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is that we use it as a SOAR platform, Security Orchestration and...

See all answers

Comparisons

Tines vs Torq

Compared 25% of the time

Splunk SOAR vs Torq

Compared 15% of the time

Blink Ops vs Torq

Compared 13% of the time

Swimlane vs Torq

Compared 7% of the time

Dropzone AI vs Torq

Compared 7% of the time

More Torq Competitors

ServiceNow Security Operations vs CRITICALSTART

Compared 12% of the time

Binary Defense MDR vs CRITICALSTART

Compared 9% of the time

Expel vs CRITICALSTART

Compared 8% of the time

SentinelOne Wayfinder Threat Detection and Response vs CRITICALSTART

Compared 6% of the time

Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response vs CRITICALSTART

Compared 4% of the time

More CRITICALSTART Competitors

Cortex XSIAM vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR

Compared 22% of the time

Splunk SOAR vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR

Compared 6% of the time

Fortinet FortiSOAR vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR

Compared 6% of the time

Tines vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR

Compared 5% of the time

Rapid7 InsightConnect vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR

Compared 3% of the time

More Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Torq

July 2026

Download Torq product report

Buyer's Guide

CRITICALSTART

August 2026

Download CRITICALSTART product report

Buyer's Guide

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR

July 2026

Download Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR product report

Also Known As

No data available

Critical Start, CriticalStart

Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto

Overview

Torq is the enterprise AI SOC solution that effectively combines adaptive insights and automation to handle critical threats efficiently. It manages threat lifecycles, swiftly moving from triage to response, ensuring effective risk management.

Torq is designed to streamline security operations by aggregating telemetry across your security stack. It investigates significant risks and manages threats from triage to containment and remediation. This AI-driven tool enhances the capabilities of your SecOps team, allowing them to achieve more impactful results without introducing complicated processes.

What are the key features of Torq?

Adaptive Agentic Insights: Provides real-time threat intelligence tailored to specific security challenges.
Automation: Automates responses to security incidents, minimizing manual intervention requirements.
Threat Lifecycle Management: Comprehensive handling of threats from detection to remediation.
Telemetry Aggregation: Integrates data across platforms for a unified security overview.

Why consider Torq based on reviews?

Efficiency: Users notice significant reductions in time spent managing threats.
Risk Reduction: Enhanced ability to identify and address critical threats promptly.
Resource Optimization: Allows teams to allocate effort to other critical tasks by reducing manual security operations.
Scalability: Adaptable to meet the demands of growing or changing infrastructures.

In industries like finance and healthcare, Torq shows effectiveness by adapting to specific risk scenarios often encountered in these fields. Its integration with existing infrastructures makes it a valuable asset for maintaining stringent security standards, essential for protecting critical data and operations in diverse high-stakes environments.

Torq

CRITICALSTART enhances cybersecurity through advanced alert management, expert guidance, and a user-friendly interface. It promotes efficient monitoring and response to alerts, utilizing a Zero Trust model for heightened security.

CRITICALSTART is designed for organizations seeking to manage security alerts and streamline monitoring processes. Known for its quick response times and efficient alert filtering, it integrates tools like Cylance and Carbon Black to offer managed detection and response services. Users experience enhanced security by focusing on critical threats while the platform's easy navigation aids in efficiently responding to alerts. Improvement areas include better alert prioritization, enhanced compliance disclosure, and smoother integration with third-party communication tools.

What are the key features of CRITICALSTART?

Alert Management: Efficient handling and filtering of alerts to minimize noise.
Expert Guidance: Insights for integrating SIEM and optimizing response strategies.
Mobile Access: Easy access through a mobile app to manage alerts on the go.
Zero Trust Model: Enhances security by minimizing unnecessary access and noise.
User-Friendly Interface: Seamless navigation enhances user interaction and response times.

What advantages and ROI should users consider?

Improved Security Confidence: Advanced alert handling promotes a secure environment.
Increased Efficiency: Streamlined monitoring allows focus on critical threats.
Expert Insight: Professional guidance enhances security strategies and operations.
Quick Response Times: Rapid handling of threats reduces potential impacts.

In industry applications, organizations use CRITICALSTART to bolster cybersecurity measures across finance, healthcare, and technology sectors. Managed detection services and third-party integration make it suitable for enterprises looking to optimize security operations and minimize alert fatigue while ensuring 24/7 monitoring and protection.

Critical Start

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR enhances security operations automation and integration. Users rely on its incident management capabilities and machine learning to improve response times and efficiency.

Cortex XSOAR stands out for its capability to automate and orchestrate security tasks through customizable playbooks and robust third-party integrations. Its analytics offer insights into incidents, while machine learning prioritizes alerts and reduces false positives. Despite its powerful features, users note room for improvement in documentation, interface design, and integration capabilities. Cost and complexity in setup and deployment are also concerns. Users in security operations centers benefit significantly from automated data enrichment, streamlined incident response, and efficient handling of threats like phishing and endpoint management.

What are the key features of Cortex XSOAR?

Automation & Integration: Automates security tasks and integrates with many third-party tools.
Customizable Playbooks: Flexible playbook creation tailored to specific security needs.
User-Friendly Interface: Simplifies incident management, improving workflow efficiency.
Machine Learning: Prioritizes alerts and reduces false positives for better decision-making.
Analytics & Dashboards: Provides insights through customizable analytics and dashboards.

Why should users consider Cortex XSOAR's benefits?

Reduced Response Times: Accelerates incident response through automation and orchestration.
Improved Workflows: Streamlines security operations for greater efficiency.
Insightful Analytics: Offers valuable insights into security incidents and operations.
Scalability: Supports growing security needs with straightforward scalability.
Enhanced Threat Management: Increases capabilities in handling phishing and endpoint threats.

Cortex XSOAR is implemented across industries for automating and streamlining security operations. Organizations use it to create playbooks, integrate with security tools, and automate repetitive tasks, thereby improving the efficiency of their security operations centers and incident management processes.

Palo Alto Networks

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

Cellcom Israel, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, esri, Cylance, Flatiron Health, Veeva, ADT Cybersecurity

Buyer's Guide

CRITICALSTART vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR

June 2026

Free Report: CRITICALSTART vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR

Find out what your peers are saying about CRITICALSTART vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

909,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CRITICALSTART vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR report.

See our list of best Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) vendors.

We monitor all Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.