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

Galvanize IncidentBond [EOL] vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

Galvanize IncidentBond [EOL]
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Palo Alto Networks Cortex X...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
61
Ranking in other categories
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (2nd), SOC as a Service (2nd)
 

Featured Reviews

DE
Information Security Engineer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Customization and transparency of data, while maintaining a mostly user-friendly UI
Sadly, I can’t provide specific examples due to the nature of the content of the improvements. I will say that, prior to implementation, and post-implementation, we saw a nearly 800% increase in volume of completed and correctly completed documentation in regards to specific tasks being completed. Rsam puts the workflow first, and lets the record follow it. It literally puts a task on rails and the person needing to do the work only need respond to the prompts accordingly and let Rsam automate the rest. The data is cleaner, more uniform, and there’s simply more of it created more quickly, as a result.
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

"The customization and the transparency of data while still maintaining a mostly user-friendly UI, are key features. It allows for me, as an engineer, to evolve the individual components and modules, and to create a much more meaningful picture than the individual pieces in isolation ever could."
"Rsam puts the workflow first, and lets the record follow it, literally putting a task on rails so the person needing to do the work only needs to respond to the prompts accordingly and let Rsam automate the rest."
"The orchestration in XSOAR is significantly easier compared to other SOAR tools I've used."
"It was useful as a ticketing tool."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is a good product with enhanced and efficient playbooks, as demonstrated during our use case simulations."
"It has an extensive list of integrations that are available out of the box which makes it easy to start."
"The solution provides threat intelligence with EDR."
"The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR are the remote controller from the workstation that can execute commands and isolate the systems outside of the network. Only the system with an internet connection can execute the task because the main console is in the cloud."
"The time to respond was reduced by approximately sixty percent, which specifically reduced the manual effort required from analysts."
"The performance is great."
 

Cons

"Stable – Release – Experimental" system with their releases, and all the proper checks and balances, I’d be an incredibly happy individual. I can appreciate the cause and affect, wherein the customization of the tool drives rapid release schedules, and the paradox that creates with the idea of stable releases. I’d also like more transparency about known bugs and issues."
"Hands down, if Rsam adopted a more industry proper "End of life – Deprecated – Stable – Release – Experimental" system with their releases, and all the proper checks and balances, I’d be an incredibly happy individual."
"The negative aspect of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is the price; cost-wise, it is a bit higher."
"I would love to see more flexibility on what we can display and design on the dashboards."
"The biggest area for improvement is simplifying playbook development and debugging."
"The platform’s setup procedures could be streamlined compared to one of its competitors."
"I think they should increase their collaboration base."
"Implementing this solution requires a lot of involvement from the vendor and it should be made easier for the partners."
"The dashboard could be better."
"When Palo Alto bought the solution, the pricing increased by 1.5 times. There's been a 50% increase, which is a lot."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"When I first looked at Demisto, it had a price tag of $250,000 but when we finally purchased it, it was $345,000."
"It's cheaper compared to its competitors."
"There is a yearly license required for this solution and it is expensive."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could be reduced. We are always looking for a discount. There is an annual license needed to use this solution."
"It is expensive."
"Cortex XSOAR's price could be lower."
"The solution is a bit on the expensive side."
"There is a perception that it is priced very high compared to other solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Incident Response solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
6%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

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 consumer as an analyst. I was not part of deploying cost, license, procurement, or pro...
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 as a product or at least as a summarizing feature. If that is there, I think it w...
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 Response tool for our security incidents. I can give you a quick specific examp...
 

Also Known As

IncidentBond, Rsam SIRP, Rsam Incident Management, Rsam Security Incident Response Platform
Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

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 ServiceNow, Trellix, Broadcom and others in Security Incident Response. Updated: August 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.