We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiSOAR and ThreatQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Palo Alto Networks, Splunk and others in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)."We are able to deploy within half an hour and we only require one person to complete the implementation."
"The in-built SOAR of Sentinel is valuable. Kusto Query Language is also valuable for the ease of writing queries and ease of getting insights from the logs. Schedule-based queries within Sentinel are also valuable. I found these three features most useful for my projects."
"One of the most valuable features of Microsoft Sentinel is that it's cloud-based."
"Sentinel is a SIEM and SOAR tool, so its automation is the best feature; we can reduce human interaction, freeing up our human resources."
"The analytic rule is the most valuable feature."
"You can fine-tune the SOAR and you'll be charged only when your playbooks are triggered. That is the beauty of the solution because the SOAR is the costliest component in the market today... but with Sentinel it is upside-down: the SOAR is the lowest-hanging fruit. It's the least costly and it delivers more value to the customer."
"The native integration of the Microsoft security solution has been essential because it helps reduce some false positives, especially with some of the impossible travel rules that may be configured in Microsoft 365. For some organizations, that might be benign because they're using VPNs, etc."
"It is easy to implement (turn on) - does need a skilled analyst to develop queries and playbooks."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiSOAR is the number of available connectors and the simplicity to start to automate."
"It has a quick detection and response time."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiSOAR is the playbook, which has to be defined to apply the policies."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The implementation phase of the product was not tough or difficult."
"The solution is easy to implement and includes 450 built-in connectors."
"The product can be automated for network security purposes. The solution offers a great security automation response."
"Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy."
"The reporting services are great. With reporting services, if you have customers that just visit a URL you can see the result - including why it's blocked and how and how the URL was first recognized as malicious."
"Microsoft should improve Sentinel, considering that from the legacy systems, it cannot collect logs."
"There is room for improvement in entity behavior and the integration site."
"The playbook is a bit difficult and could be improved."
"I would like to be able to monitor applications outside of the Azure Cloud."
"We do have in-built or out-of-the-box metrics that are shown on the dashboard, but it doesn't give the kind of metrics that we need from our environment whereby we need to check the meantime to detect and meantime to resolve an incident. I have to do it manually. I have to pull all the logs or all the alerts that are fed into Sentinel over a certain period. We do this on a monthly basis, so I go into Microsoft Sentinel and pull all the alerts or incidents we closed over a period of thirty days."
"Sentinel's reporting is complex and can be more user-friendly."
"We've seen delays in getting the logs from third-party solutions and sometimes Microsoft products as well. It would be helpful if Microsoft created a list of the delays. That would make things more transparent for customers."
"I would like Sentinel to have more out-of-the-box analytics rules. There are already more than 400 rules, but they could add more industry-specific ones. For example, you could have sets of out-of-the-box rules for banking, financial sector, insurance, automotive, etc., so it's easier for people to use it out of the box. Structuring the rules according to industry might help us."
"Fortinet FortiSOAR's dashboard is not easy to understand."
"Fortinet FortiSOAR should improve its analysis."
"The area that needs improvement is integration with multiple third-party vendors."
"Fortinet FortiSOAR should add more documentation for some use cases."
"The technology and integrations are important so should continue to be enhanced."
"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."
"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."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
Fortinet FortiSOAR is ranked 10th in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 11 reviews while ThreatQ is ranked 25th in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 2 reviews. Fortinet FortiSOAR is rated 7.4, while ThreatQ is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiSOAR writes "A stable solution that has a number of available connectors and is simple to automate". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ThreatQ writes "Improves the threat intelligence gathering process, but it is not user-friendly". Fortinet FortiSOAR is most compared with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, Splunk SOAR, Swimlane, ServiceNow Security Operations and D3 Security, whereas ThreatQ is most compared with ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP), Anomali ThreatStream, Recorded Future, Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and CrowdStrike Falcon.
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.