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

McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator vs Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

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

Torq
Sponsored
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (1st), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st)
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (14th)
Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
67
Ranking in other categories
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (5th), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (9th), Application Control (6th), ZTNA as a Service (1st), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (3rd), Remote Browser Isolation (RBI) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator2.0%
Microsoft Sentinel9.6%
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR8.7%
Other79.7%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform8.6%
Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks10.2%
Netskope7.5%
Other73.7%
Secure Access Service Edge (SASE)
 

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.
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.
Zaheer_Khan - PeerSpot reviewer
Cybersecurity Senior Program Manager at Dayforce
Secure access has improved remote work and has reduced vulnerabilities across our workforce
Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform probably needs to be more efficient because scanning takes a lot of time. Some vulnerabilities create issues, and when we wanted to identify the source of the vulnerabilities, specifically focusing on mobile ID and related areas, it was unable to provide assistance. However, according to discussions with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform, they said that by the end of mid-2026, they are exploring these features, and probably those features can be incorporated or embedded into this particular system. That is the only major negative point.In terms of responses, Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform is good. In terms of controlling vulnerability, it is good. The only cons I have noticed is that it is a bit slower, and sometimes it is unable to identify the source. These are the key areas for improvement.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"If I review about 100 vendors that I might work with, Torq is definitely in the top five that gave me personally investment back, just because every bit of effort I put into Torq eventually became a workflow that gave it back to me."
"With Torq, I automate actions while achieving SLA compliance and streamline alert investigation processes much better."
"Torq has changed the day-to-day experience for my security analysts and me by saving literally thousands of man-hours per month since we have implemented some of these use cases."
"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"Torq's unified platform approach to AI, SOAR, automation, and case management is superior compared to my experience managing multiple point solutions."
"Torq has exceeded expectations by delivering workflows in a timely and lower effort manner than XSOAR, and it meets all my needs while saving a ton of time and targeting $600,000 saved this year, which is a substantial amount of money."
"Torq has helped a lot regarding SOC analyst efficiency."
"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."
"The installation process is straightforward."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator improves our general endpoint security - wherever a user might be tricked into clicking on a link or downloading a file or bringing a file on an external medium or getting it from somewhere on the internet, after having detected that it could be malicious, it blocks it."
"Technical support is very helpful."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the antivirus and the DLP."
"The most valuable feature of the McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is agent communication."
"Regarding malware, it's great at detecting viruses and malware; we haven't had the problem for the last ten years."
"Application control and traffic encryption are the most valuable features."
"We previously used Symantec, and if we compare it to McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is better."
"The platform offers advanced threat protection features and embedded AI/ML capabilities, making it more proactive in blocking threats."
"Two great features that we really like on the solution are the Internet Access and Private Access."
"The most valuable feature of Zscaler Private Access is the categorization of the dynamic URLs which keeps the customer's environment protected. The threats and the malware are correctly categorized."
"The VPN is great for the stability on offer and for the cloud updates and insights you can get."
"The solution offers a simplified network infrastructure and security functions and it enables secure remote access for the users"
"The most valuable features of this solution are the CASB solutions, which is protecting their Office 365."
"The solution is cloud-based with the latest inspection engines, which I find to be amazing."
"I find all Zscaler Private Access features valuable because each replaces flawed technologies, such as EPAs being replacements for VPN and PR as a replacement for PAM, so I can't mention only one valuable feature. Overall, Zscaler Private Access is a good solution."
 

Cons

"What has not worked as well as I hoped with Torq is related to product data management and storing data, although it still provides faster response and saves time."
"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."
"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."
"Regarding the pricing of Torq, I would say it is expensive."
"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."
"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"If Torq could enhance its AI features, it would benefit customers significantly by making the platform even more user-friendly."
"There are some issues and bugs that I think need to be fixed, but they are currently not focused on it."
"There are some issues we are having with updating our Windows server. So we need to contact support or access our support portal."
"It's a little bit complex to configure it, but when you start using it, it is much easier. There are many policies that you need to create, and in three or four places"
"A lot of the components of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, such as Sandboxing, DX, and ATP are not stable."
"The Virtual Patching feature needs to be improved."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator support has been helpful. However, sometimes when I raise the case they take a while to answer. For example, the last time I used them it took them two weeks to reply back by email. No one has contacted me back since. They should improve their service."
"McAfee should improve in terms of customer support and assigning a knowledgeable TAM to customers."
"Although it has the ability to auto create service tickets, it needs to expand to allow more products this ability."
"The technical support is pretty poor."
"Sometimes, support takes time since the solution has some bugs that need fixing."
"There could be a feature to view the VPN tunnel activities in terms of configuration."
"Zscaler Private Access needs to improve its collaboration with applications without compromising security."
"I rate it a seven because I am still working through some kinks from a performance and a support perspective."
"The product must allow users to check logs for an entire year in the local console."
"SCMP support would be one of the biggest improvements in my opinion. More speed improvements are also required."
"On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Zscaler Private Access at only a three or four."
"To enhance their offering, it is advisable for them to focus on strengthening the foundation of their architecture. Additionally, they should consider integrating a broader range of services that go beyond what managed service providers typically offer independently."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"$The price of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is expensive, it is approximately $6,000 to $9,000 per license annually."
"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."
"This solution is priced in the mid-range."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is not an expensive solution."
"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."
"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."
"Compared to other Antivirus products, the cost of this solution is a bit high."
"As per industry leads, Zscaler CASB is an expensive solution."
"My company is a Zscaler Private Access partner, so the customers pay for the license fees."
"The price is competitive."
"Zscaler Cloud DLP is moderately priced. We pay around 2 million rupees per year."
"The cost is expensive. It depends on the number of users."
"Zscaler Private Access is extremely expensive."
"It has been relatively reasonable for what it does. Some of the additional license costs based on the advanced next-generation firewall functions are quite high, and they should have certain features ready and available as a baseline rather than having to purchase additional licenses for it. Overall, the cost seems reasonable."
"It's an affordable solution"
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
920,939 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

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

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise13
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise19
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise45
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?
What has not worked as well as I hoped with Torq is related to product data management and storing data, although it ...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
My main use case for Torq is for managing IT services and providing faster response.
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
I would rate Torq a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. I chose this rating because customer service is excellent. I suggest to...
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.
What is the better solution - Prisma Access or Zscaler Private Access?
We looked into Prisma Access before choosing Zscaler Private Access (ZPA). Palo Alto’s Prisma Access is a secure ac...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Zscaler Cloud Protection?
This is an area where I have candid feedback from our organization regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Z...
What needs improvement with Zscaler Cloud Protection?
After three years of working with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform, I do have genuine feedback on areas where I f...
 

Also Known As

No data available
McAfee ePO, ePolicy Orchestrator, Intel Security ePolicy Orchestrator, McAfee MVISION ePO
Zscaler SASE, Zscaler DLP, Zscaler CASB, Zscaler CSPM, Zscaler Browser Isolation, Zscaler Posture Control
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

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
Siemens, AutoNation, GE, NOV
Find out what your peers are saying about Splunk, Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft and others in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR). Updated: November 2026.
920,939 professionals have used our research since 2012.