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

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus vs Tines 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

Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
21st
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tines
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
11th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (6th), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st), AI IT Support (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) category, the mindshare of Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is 1.4%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tines is 1.0%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tines1.0%
Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus1.4%
Other97.6%
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
 

Featured Reviews

Tejas Jain - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Cloud Security Architect at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Seamless integration into existing ecosystem empowers effective threat detection
The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is its seamless integration into the Palo Alto Networks ecosystem, allowing the threat intelligence feeds to be automatically consumed without manual effort. It uses the STIX format, which is automatically understood by the firewalls. AutoFocus also excels in behavioral analytics and reputation scoring, providing thorough threat analysis.
MI
Cyber Security Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Automation has transformed alert triage and now powers AI-driven security operations
There are three things that I would say could be better. The first is the Change Control UI. I have noticed that the UI for Change Control is a bit difficult to navigate and assess, but I know that Tines is working on that and so hopefully we will see results soon. The second thing is the action called Implode. The issue with the Implode action is that once we get a certain number of events into the Implode action, we lose context of all the events except the last one that came in, so it is a bit difficult to send data back once it goes through the Implode action. I have raised this up with Tines, but I do not know if they are working on this or not. The third thing is the capacity to debug. If my story is not attached to a case, it is a bit difficult to debug if I run into an error. I have to identify the exact event that caused the error and then start debugging from there, so that is not entirely user-friendly. These are the three downfalls that I have noticed with Tines.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus has had a positive impact on my company as we can reduce the cost for the SOC investment, and we can also get good feedback on how to strengthen our network from the expertise people available."
"It is very easy to install and set up AutoFocus."
"The logs play a crucial role as they contribute to blocking unwanted Internet traffic."
"It integrates well with other solutions and provides good threat intelligence in terms of external threats."
"It's a very good solution, it identifies critical attacks and alerts you."
"I would rate Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus a ten out of ten."
"I am impressed with the tool's integration of Palo Alto products which serves as a platform for security."
"The most valuable feature is alerting."
"The tool was vendor-neutral."
"The best advantage is the no-code automation, excellent customer support services, and ease of integration with other tools."
"One of the most valuable features is that it’s a low-code solution."
"The best thing is that it's no code, so it doesn't require coding knowledge."
"For an analyst, it would take at least one hour to two hours to get the result with this much perfection, but with Tines, it happens instantaneously."
 

Cons

"I would like to have more technical documentation that contains greater detail on the types of threats that are occurring."
"It would be better if they used the threat intelligence feeds directly from their side and changing the verdict instead of us requesting it."
"It would be better if they used the threat intelligence feeds directly from their side and changing the verdict instead of us requesting it."
"It must be on-premises as well; it must have a server on-premises. It is a completely cloud-based product at present."
"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 to have more technical documentation that contains greater detail on the types of threats that are occurring."
"I would like the tool to see more integration with Cortex XDR. There is no real reason to keep them separate."
"Reporting and dashboards could be more advanced for deeper analysis."
"They started implementing some AI, and their AI is isolated."
"Maybe Tines can add more features and demonstrations, like videos on how to use the features within the tool."
"There are three things that I would say could be better."
"Tines was a little bit more expensive than Torq."
 

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 (TIP) solutions are best for your needs.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Performing Arts
15%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Large Enterprise4
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus?
I feel that Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus can improve, especially since most of the OEMs are implementing MDR, Managed Service feature, which is still not available with Palo Alto. The MDR feature i...
What is your primary use case for Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus?
I use Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus for threat monitoring, and it is provided by the OEM itself. I use the threat data correlation feature, which correlates with Cortex. We can use it for data corre...
What advice do you have for others considering Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus?
As a partner with Palo Alto Networks, my email is Sarvajit at bsrgroup.in. My job title is Technical Manager. I confirm that we will publish these reviews on peerspot.com in written or audio format...
What needs improvement with Tines?
There are three things that I would say could be better. The first is the Change Control UI. I have noticed that the UI for Change Control is a bit difficult to navigate and assess, but I know that...
What is your primary use case for Tines?
In the cybersecurity engineering and security automation field, we use Tines to automate the enrichment and analysis of different use cases, including IOC enrichment and bringing AI-powered capabil...
What advice do you have for others considering Tines?
We are not in control of the deployment anymore. Initially we were using an S3 bucket to deploy Tines, but now Tines is taking care of the deployment. It used to be Amazon before, but now Tines is ...
 

Also Known As

Palo Alto Threat Intelligence Management
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Telkom Indonesia
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus vs. Tines and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.