Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus vs ThreatQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 11, 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

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms
27th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ThreatQ
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms
12th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Threat Intelligence Platforms category, the mindshare of Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is 1.2%, down from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatQ is 2.8%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Threat Intelligence Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

RichPhillips - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers a centralized dashboard for reporting threats and anomalies
The tool along with other suite of products provides us with threat and alert information.  The solution has provided us with a centralized dashboard for reporting threats and anomalies.  I am impressed with the tool's integration of Palo Alto products which serves as a platform for security.  I…
Yasir Akram - PeerSpot reviewer
Good reporting and pretty stable but needs to be simpler to use
The support team of ThreatQ set up a VM on our VPN, which was SlashNext's private VPN. Then we just initiated some system calls and ThreatQ provided us the configuration file with our settings (like our email, our API key, our URL, our category, etc.). They set up a VM on our private VPN cloud. And then they provided us the configuration file in which we just entered our details like our company URL, our API category, and API keys et cetera. We could just add it on the configuration file. We just uploaded it to the ThreatQ server. After running the system calls, we just initiated the ThreatQ and then performed tasks on the UI, such as categorizing the reports. If we only wanted the report for phishing, then we just manipulated the data on the UI and just extracted the reports. That's all. The deployment was complex. We used high hardware specifications. I don't remember the exact specifications, however, I recall them being high. There were some services that had some compatibility errors. That's why we had our VMs - to make sure that the customer would not face any errors. Everything's deployed with high specifications and custom specifications. That was the biggest challenge for us - to deploy on the customer VMs. On average, deployment takes 15-20 minutes if it's deployed without any errors. I was with one of the NetOps network admin during deployment. We were only two people and we just deployed and installed all services and we executed the deployment.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The logs play a crucial role as they contribute to blocking unwanted Internet traffic."
"I would rate Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus a ten out of ten."
"It integrates well with other solutions and provides good threat intelligence in terms of external threats."
"The most valuable feature is alerting."
"The feature that I like best is the dashboard."
"I am impressed with the tool's integration of Palo Alto products which serves as a platform for security."
"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."
 

Cons

"It is a completely cloud-based product at present."
"It would be helpful to have better documentation for configuring and installing the solution."
"I would like the tool to see more integration with Cortex XDR. There is no real reason to keep them separate."
"It would be better if they used the threat intelligence feeds directly from their side and changing the verdict instead of us requesting it."
"I would like to have more technical documentation that contains greater detail on the types of threats that are occurring."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is reasonably priced."
"It is expensive."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Threat Intelligence Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
10%
Insurance Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus?
While Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is effective, I always prefer to have a second source of threat intelligence feed to ensure coverage for zero-day vulnerabilities that might be missed. This is mo...
What is your primary use case for Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus?
I use Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus ( /products/palo-alto-networks-autofocus-reviews ) for threat intelligence. Palo Alto Networks has its own threat intelligence team, Unit 42, which analyzes submi...
What advice do you have for others considering Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus?
I would rate Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus a ten out of ten. I always activate it when purchasing Palo Alto Networks products because it's simple to deploy and beneficial. However, for non-Palo Alto...
What do you like most about ThreatQ?
Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy.
What needs improvement with ThreatQ?
The tool is not user-friendly. It is not beginner-friendly. It would be very difficult for a beginner to learn the tool. It will take at least two months to get familiar with it. Building the playb...
What is your primary use case for ThreatQ?
We used the solution for threat mapping and managing IoCs.
 

Also Known As

Palo Alto Threat Intelligence Management
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Telkom Indonesia
Radar, Bitdefender, Crowdstrike, FireEye, IBM Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus vs. ThreatQ and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.