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

IBM Resilient 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)
IBM Resilient
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
19th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Security Incident Response (7th)
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 IBM Resilient is 2.3%, up from 1.9% 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%
IBM Resilient2.3%
Other85.2%
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.
ZaidHaddad - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Seller at Alawtad group
Suitable for different industries and ensures effective incident response
IBM Resilient is great in many aspects like its wide range of integrations and customizable playbooks. However, one thing to improve is how it handles data formats, which currently might require scripting for conversion to CSV before uploading. Despite this, it stands out for incident response, case management, task organization, and team collaboration, making it a strong choice for organizations compared to competitors like Demisto Palo Alto. When it comes to additional features, I think IBM Resilient is on the right track with its AI capabilities, like linking related incidents and providing recommended actions. It would be nice to see more enhancements in this area, but overall, it looks good.
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

"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."
"Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq."
"We have seen fewer failures of automations from the time Torq came into the picture, we've had a more streamlined process of handling incidents, and at the same time, we've learned to embed the AI into our incident types, and that is how it has helped us in the automation."
"Once I started to use the system and I saw the potential, it changed all of our work in IT."
"Torq has helped a lot regarding SOC analyst efficiency."
"Torq offers the best feature through integration with AI."
"Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes."
"As an analyst, it has demonstrated potential to reduce workforce requirements and time needed for related activities."
"Its flexibility is the most valuable."
"The most valuable thing about it is how easy it is to navigate the user interface."
"The interlinking of the offenses is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us."
"As a whole, the product is stable...Technical support is very good."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"The solution is simple to use and to integrate with IBM QRadar."
"What I like most about IBM Resilient is that it has a complete stack, which means you don't need to use different OEM products because you have all you need under the IBM Resilient umbrella. You don't need to worry much about integrations and components because you're working with tested and proven architecture."
"We've had a very positive experience."
"The time to respond was reduced by approximately sixty percent, which specifically reduced the manual effort required from analysts."
"The product is quite easy to use."
"For each SOC and MSS environment, I would recommend using Cortex XSOAR for better productivity, scalability, performance, and efficiency."
"The playbook automation helped streamline my incident response time by removing delays from the human side and reducing the mean time to respond."
"The set of playbooks that XSOAR already has inside it is really huge, and it is also great for a lot of informational security managers and engineers that can just choose what they need and not have to create anything from scratch."
"It has an extensive list of integrations that are available out of the box which makes it easy to start."
"My impression is that Demisto is scalable and it is capable of working across wide geography at any given point in time."
 

Cons

"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."
"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."
"If Torq could enhance its AI features, it would benefit customers significantly by making the platform even more user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
"Regarding the pricing of Torq, I would say it is expensive."
"Torq can probably use more ML and look at what can be closed and what cannot be closed in terms of data classification."
"Integrating IBM Resilient with other applications can be very difficult and technically challenging. Often, they use the excuse that you are using the latest version of an application, such as an endpoint security system, and they don't have an API or support for it at the moment. There is no automation in the SOAR solution."
"The response time of the support is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The product must provide more integration with other tools."
"One thing to improve is how it handles data formats, which currently might require scripting for conversion to CSV before uploading."
"The ability to analyze incidents needs to be improved in the solution."
"Right now, sometimes it can take up to two to three months to resolve an issue, which is far too long."
"This product could be improved with better customization. This product isn't the best on the market like QRadar, but it's actually a good solution. However, some competitors' solutions contain more integration, support, automation, or flexibility."
"There are shortcomings with IBM Resilient's technical support team that can be considered for improvement in the future."
"One area for improvement I see in Cortex XSOAR is the cost."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve the look, feel, and management of the cloud console. Additionally, the user could be more easily integrated."
"I would love to see more flexibility on what we can display and design on the dashboards."
"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 solution requires DV but does not support open-source DV elastic searches."
"The dashboard could be better."
"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."
"The solution is complicated to learn."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"There is a license you need to pay for in order to use this product."
"There are no costs except for the support services that our company pays in addition to the licensing charges attached to the solution."
"We could create unlimited users using the license we had purchased."
"Pricing for the solution is good, in my opinion."
"I would rate the tool’s pricing a three out of ten. The tool’s pricing is on a yearly basis."
"It is very expensive."
"I feel it is an expensive product when my company pays annually for renewal, support, and follow-up."
"The cost of the product is quite high."
"When I first looked at Demisto, it had a price tag of $250,000 but when we finally purchased it, it was $345,000."
"There is a yearly license required for this solution and it is expensive."
"The solution is expensive."
"There is a perception that it is priced very high compared to other solutions."
"It's cheaper compared to its competitors."
"Cortex XSOAR's price could be lower."
"Palo Alto offers significant discounts to customers who purchase the products repeatedly."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
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
9%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Construction Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Government
7%
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
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise7
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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Resilient?
I am not the one in charge of pricing, so I am not sure about the costs.
What needs improvement with IBM Resilient?
Integration with some devices, including Cisco PowerPower and certain antivirus products, has limitations.
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
No data available
Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Golden Living, Health Equity, USA Funds
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 IBM Resilient vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
909,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.