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

Cyware Cyber Fusion 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
6.6
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (1st), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st)
Cyware Cyber Fusion
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
22nd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (30th)
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
61
Ranking in other categories
SOC as a Service (2nd)
 

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 Cyware Cyber Fusion is 1.7%, up from 1.0% 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
ProductMindshare (%)
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR8.9%
Torq3.6%
Cyware Cyber Fusion1.7%
Other85.8%
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.
AhmedKonsowa - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Pre-Sales Engineer (Commercial Sector) at Cyber Knight
A stable solution with excellent features and a helpful technical support team
We use the solution for cyber fusion centers The product has a lot of strong points compared to other tools. The prices must be reduced. I have been using the solution for one year. I am using the latest version of the solution. I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten. In my company,…
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

"Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq."
"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."
"What I appreciate most about Torq is that it is an essential part of our system."
"As an analyst, it has demonstrated potential to reduce workforce requirements and time needed for related activities."
"With Torq, I automate actions while achieving SLA compliance and streamline alert investigation processes much better."
"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."
"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."
"Torq's unified platform approach to AI, SOAR, automation, and case management is superior compared to my experience managing multiple point solutions."
"The technical support team is helpful."
"The product is stable."
"The repository of playbooks and the integration between Palo Alto and IBM QRadar are some useful features"
"Each incident collected is orchestrated with automation that selects the security analyst to be involved, or provides complex execution plans for managing security incidents."
"The drag-and-drop interface enables analysts with no programming knowledge to create playbooks easily."
"I am satisfied with the product overall."
"The product is quite easy to use."
"The solution is user-friendly and easy to configure."
"It is a scalable solution. I would rate scalability a ten out of ten."
"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."
 

Cons

"However, we did encounter some problems with custom steps, which definitely affected our progress, and the speed of bug fixes is also a bit slower than expected."
"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."
"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 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."
"Torq can probably use more ML and look at what can be closed and what cannot be closed in terms of data classification."
"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 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."
"The prices must be reduced."
"The tool doesn't integrate well with ServiceNow."
"The user interface could be a bit better."
"One area for improvement I see in Cortex XSOAR is the cost."
"It's only one cloud right now. It might be helpful for some companies to have an on-premies option."
"The existing model is good, but if we go for big deployments, I think there are a few challenges in scalability. They use their internal BoltDB, which is good for a medium organization, but for large organizations, they support Elasticsearch, which is too costly."
"I would like to see Cortex become less dependent on Active Directory and group policies to manage the deployment. Maybe I need to update my understanding of how to deploy it, but that's the way I know how to use it."
"There is room for improvement in support. The response time could be faster."
"The solution should be made a bit cheaper."
"One disadvantage or thing which can be improved in Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is the cost because it is too costly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
Information not available
"The solution is expensive."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is comparable to other solutions in the market."
"It 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."
"The solution's cost is high."
"The solution's cost is reasonable."
"From the cost perspective, I have heard that its price is a bit high as compared to other similar products."
"Cortex XSOAR's price could be lower."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
908,877 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
10%
Comms Service Provider
19%
Healthcare Company
11%
Construction Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise32
 

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...
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 ...
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...
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...
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...
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
CSOL, Fusion and Threat Response, Threat Intelligence eXchange, Security Orchestration and Automation (SOAR)
Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Information Not Available
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 Cyware Cyber Fusion vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.