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

Fortinet FortiSOAR vs McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator 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)
Fortinet FortiSOAR
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
9th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
16th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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 Fortinet FortiSOAR is 3.5%, down from 4.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is 1.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Torq3.5%
Fortinet FortiSOAR3.5%
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator1.8%
Other91.2%
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.
VIJAICYRIAC - PeerSpot reviewer
Director at Movate
Automated playbooks have reduced response times and provided deeper threat analytics
The effectiveness of Fortinet FortiSOAR playbooks is that they minimize the mean time to response and MTTR, and I think more automation is required to improve the response time. I am working with the Dynamic Case Management feature, and it is dynamic. The Dynamic Case Management feature is more helpful for us to get real-time anomalies and identify the threats. It also assists in real-time response, so it is helpful.
Binu Haneef - PeerSpot reviewer
System Administrator at Sky News Arabia
Comprehensive security management enabled through efficient integration and automation
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator helps automate routine security tasks. We created customized automation. For example, when we did not have an EDR or XDR solution, we created tasks exclusively for detection and response automation and automatic segregation of infected PCs. The ability to customize the dashboard in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator helps us significantly. The main feature is automation for auto-segmentation and segregation. As we are in an AI era, McAfee can focus on AI tools. Instead of putting manual effort into each security-related task, it can implement more advanced automation using AI. This enhancement could improve cybersecurity significantly. Regarding the reporting area in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, we are satisfied with what we currently have. Our cybersecurity team needs customized reports beyond the default ones. We have more than 20 separate reports for identifying threats, managing, and understanding the security posture of our company and assets.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"According to positive outcomes, Torq reduced manual work and made incident response more efficient."
"Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq."
"Torq's unified platform approach to AI, SOAR, automation, and case management is superior compared to my experience managing multiple point solutions."
"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 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."
"Torq offers the best feature through integration with AI."
"As an analyst, it has demonstrated potential to reduce workforce requirements and time needed for related activities."
"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"The most fascinating aspect of FortiSOAR is its modern and simple to understand and operate dashboards."
"The solution is easy to implement and includes 450 built-in connectors."
"My final rating for Fortinet FortiSOAR would be 10 out of 10, where one is bad and ten is good."
"The good news is that FortiSOAR is not hard to maintain. If you prepared well and deployed strong initially, then maintenance will take half an hour every other week, not more than that. A single person can do it."
"The solution's most valuable feature is playbook creation, which allows us to integrate all data ingestion into the same platform."
"We use the product for security."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is its centralization as you don't want to be going to different locations to correlate items or to piece anything together to derive meaningful insights."
"The central manager policy is valuable, meaning we have almost all client modules in one solution, which is great."
"The security is a key feature and the console is very user friendly."
"The policy auditing, policy management, and device auditing are all valuable features. Our customers appreciated the ability to get alerts to system-wide events from a single view."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the central management console, which is used for DLP, endpoint security, drive encryption, and application control."
"It is a highly scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Application control and traffic encryption are the most valuable features."
"If you set it up right, it can really manage a very complex environment which require fine tuning where there are a lot of exceptions. That's what it caters to. It can just do those specifics in those exceptional situations, which is good."
"The most valuable feature of the McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is agent communication."
 

Cons

"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."
"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."
"Regarding the pricing of Torq, I would say it is expensive."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiSOAR has to be updated on the recent threats. Threats are changing, and it has to be updated to meet the AI-based threats that are out there."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The UI design of the solution needs to be changed since it can get difficult for a newbie to operate."
"I don't currently see where the solution is lacking features. For us and for our clients it works very well and we're pleased with it."
"Fortinet is good, however, as they get into security analytics, while their support is okay, sometimes it requires some hand-holding and their response is probably not as good as Palo Alto."
"The technology and integrations are important so should continue to be enhanced."
"I have found that Fortinet FortiSOAR needs a lot of improvement. The orchestration needs to be improved and most of its functionalities are yet to be operational, I have tried to click on the icons but they do not work."
"The solution doesn't connect well with the network devices."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator needs to upgrade the technology; it's like their area function is not quite as good as compared to other market vendors."
"There needs to be support for Mac computers. Currently, McAfee does not work on iOS."
"There is no built-in or easy upgrade of the system."
"McAfee's technical support is a bit of a letdown. Also, there's no good support within our region."
"We need to consolidate multiple features into one console. It would be beneficial to have all the important features on a single platform."
"There are some issues we are having with updating our Windows server. So we need to contact support or access our support portal."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the impact of the agent on the endpoint's performance - the resources it takes."
"The rollout to cover the online resources, such as SharePoint, One Drive, and Office 365 doesn't seem to have a very clear path."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"If you compare Fortinet FortiSOAR's price with the prices of the market leader, Palo Alto, then it can be considered a cheaper product."
"Since Africa is struggling with foreign exchange, the solution is pretty expensive there."
"The solution offers both licensing and subscription models that are similar in price to other products."
"Fortinet FortiSOAR is an expensive solution."
"Pricing is fine compared to other solutions."
"Fortinet FortiSOAR is expensive."
"The price of the product should be lower. The brand value that Fortinet has, it has the reputation of being a reasonably priced product, and they have an enormous customer base in India. Most of the SME market is covered by FortiGate firewalls. It becomes an easy way for consultants, such as us, or even system integrators, to open the door with the Fortinet product lines."
"Considering all the features of Fortinet FortiSOAR, I think it has a good price."
"This solution is priced in the mid-range."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is a cheaply priced product, meaning it is not expensive since McAfee provides a free version of ePO, which includes phone support as well."
"It's an expensive solution"
"$The price of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is expensive, it is approximately $6,000 to $9,000 per license annually."
"Compared to other Antivirus products, the cost of this solution is a bit high."
"It is attractively priced. It is a fraction of what we're going to pay for CrowdStrike or SentinelOne, but it only has a fraction of the capabilities as well."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a three out of ten."
"There is a license required to use this solution. If we use the additional components, such as DLP encryption, there is an additional cost. However, it is similar to a separate product altogether. If you want to use that or not, it is optional, but when you use it, it will cost you additional pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
912,818 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Outsourcing Company
15%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

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 Business10
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise19
 

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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortinet FortiSOAR?
The product is expensive, but it is a value-for-money product. It is a good product to invest in, eventually securing...
What needs improvement with Fortinet FortiSOAR?
Fortinet FortiSOAR has to be updated on the recent threats. Threats are changing, and it has to be updated to meet th...
What is your primary use case for Fortinet FortiSOAR?
I have been working in my field for almost four years, but right now I am not using it because my current company is ...
Which is better - Mcafee's MVision ePO or ePolicy Orchestrator?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether Mcafee's MVision ePO or ePolicy Orchestrator network secur...
What needs improvement with McAfee MVISION ePO?
There is a question regarding suggestions for additional tools or functions for McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, and whet...
What is your primary use case for McAfee MVISION ePO?
The question pertains to describing the use case and process for which people utilize McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator.
 

Also Known As

No data available
CyberSponse, FortiSOAR
McAfee ePO, ePolicy Orchestrator, Intel Security ePolicy Orchestrator, McAfee MVISION ePO
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Information Not Available
Brelje & Race, Cognizant, Sutherland Global Services, Eagle Rock Energy, Arab National Bank, Bank Central Asia, Kleberg Bank, Leading Mexican Bank, SF Police Credit Union, Macquarie Telecom, Seagate Technology, Blackburn & Darwen Council, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, IRCEP, Major U.S. State Government, State of Alaska, State of Colorado, Cemex, Deutsche Edelstahlwerke
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortinet FortiSOAR vs. McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
912,818 professionals have used our research since 2012.