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

Google Security Operations vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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)
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
2.2
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (13th), AI-Powered Security Automation (2nd)
Google Security Operations
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
14th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (23rd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (11th)
Palo Alto Networks Cortex X...
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
49
Ranking in other categories
SOC as a Service (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Torq is 4.9%, up from 4.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Google Security Operations is 3.6%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is 8.9%, down from 11.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR8.9%
Torq4.9%
Google Security Operations3.6%
Other82.6%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2767650 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Consultant at a university with 10,001+ employees
Have found automation to save analyst time but miss more accurate data classification
From our research and testing with the tool, we determined there need to be modifications and changes to train the LLM on the back end. It was able to capture data but was unable to differentiate between the agent hostname we are using and the hostname that resides on the back end of the Internet. It was unable to do that sort of classification. We concluded this tool would be more suitable for initial ticket management rather than security automation. Regarding data handling, I would give preference to Torq. For case management, Cortex and its dashboards prove more useful. Cortex and Palo's solutions do not have as much capability as Torq provides with the same tools. However, Torq's dashboards could be improved, especially on the case management side.
reviewer2203269 - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud Senior lead at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real-time threat detection and alarm management have improved security operations
Google SecOps is extremely useful for threat detection and hunting. It provides a detailed pipeline for detection and is beneficial for real-time threat monitoring when integrated with Mandiant. The tool's integration capabilities are effective, and it helps in managing alarms for normal threats efficiently. Overall, Google SecOps is a very useful service for security operations.
CC
Enterprise Security Architect V at FirstEnergy
Customization supports seamless workflow while data influx challenges response time
What I appreciate most about Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is that it is very open, even more so than Anomali. I can create various custom automations and custom fields. There is significant customization ability in this platform. If I already have an established process, I do not have to change my process to fit into the tool. I can modify the tool to fit into my process, which makes things considerably easier. All of our alerts from different tools come into this central place as we have multiple SIEMs. We have items coming from Anomali and other platforms that are not SIEM tools. This serves as our central location where our SOC analysts can work and determine if incident response is needed. The platform provides data enrichment capabilities, offering information upfront so analysts do not have to search for it. They can access details such as username, phone number, email address, and workplace information. For malware files, they can retrieve details from VirusTotal, including file names and environment presence. We have built substantial automation around these features, which also helps us track case metrics, investigation time, and threat mitigation duration.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"As an analyst, it has demonstrated potential to reduce workforce requirements and time needed for related activities."
"The playbooks feature in Siemplify is crucial for automation. We've utilized both standard and custom integrations with other security operation solutions, enhancing our flexibility. The user interface is generally straightforward, although recent changes may require some adjustment and Siemplify's integrations and capabilities offer potential support for various compliance requirements."
"Without hyperbole, I have never, in my entire career, encountered a vendor or a vendor community as awesome as Siemplify. Siemplify and the Siemplify Community quite literally made it possible for our SOC to increase almost five-fold in our number of clients and number of analysts and to go from a Monday to Friday 9-5 shop to a 24/7 shop all in the span of under a year and a half and all while continually adding capabilities and improving the services we offer to our clients."
"The most valuable feature of Siemplify is the playbooks that can be created."
"Google SecOps is extremely useful for threat detection and hunting."
"Overall, Google SecOps is a very useful service for security operations."
"The solution is user-friendly and easy to configure."
"We use the solution to automate our SIEM tools and incidents."
"What I appreciate most about Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is that it is very open, even more so than Anomali."
"For organizations that are stable with their security operations, like those with around 50 members in their security team running full-phased operations 24/7, Cortex is necessary."
"I chose Cortex XSOAR because the client also has Palo Alto firewalls. I can incorporate the data from the Palo Alto firewalls into Cortex and send it into the same data lake to manipulate that data. It lets me manage and monitor the data in one place."
"The most valuable features are the orchestration because of the way in which it coordinates the loss from all the devices and it provides us with a high-level overview of the critical log information."
"Palo Alto is easy to use."
"The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR are its overall track record and features that fit our use case."
 

Cons

"It was able to capture data but was unable to differentiate between the agent hostname we are using and the hostname that resides on the back end of the Internet."
"The main improvement could be in the accuracy and detail provided in threat descriptions."
"The main improvement could be in the accuracy and detail provided in threat descriptions."
"Building the playbooks could be easier and the integration could improve. It is a difficult process, such as what API connections need to be made."
"I'm inclined to say that I'd love to see some Machine Learning capabilities integrated into the platform, however, I just attended a demo this morning where Siemplify gave a sneak peek into some Machine Learning capabilities that they are currently developing and have roadmapped for release soon."
"We often encounter minor issues that could be improved, but we maintain communication with the developers and submit feature requests. Recently, I requested enhancements such as improved search functionality within playbooks and expanded options for exporting case data."
"The formats are not compatible, are readily not available, and are not readable."
"It's only one cloud right now. It might be helpful for some companies to have an on-premies option."
"It is not a very scalable solution."
"The solution is complicated to learn."
"Creating complex playbooks using coding languages, such as Python, could be easier."
"The user interface (UI) is quite heavy and takes time to load, which is a major drawback."
"The price of the solution could be lower."
"The solution requires DV but does not support open-source DV elastic searches."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
Information not available
"There is a perception that it is priced very high compared to other solutions."
"My company did not make any payments towards the licensing costs attached to the product since we were only using its pilot version."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is expensive."
"It's cheaper compared to its competitors."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is comparable to other solutions in the market."
"The solution is based on an annual licensing model that is expensive."
"When I first looked at Demisto, it had a price tag of $250,000 but when we finally purchased it, it was $345,000."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
880,315 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
7%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business19
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise25
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?
From our research and testing with the tool, we determined there need to be modifications and changes to train the LL...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
I used Torq for conducting one of the proof of evaluations for a vendor we are connected with. I am currently working...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
One of our members uses AWS, and we receive their feed. This involves triaging AWS-related logs. While I do not have ...
What do you like most about Siemplify?
The playbooks feature in Siemplify is crucial for automation. We've utilized both standard and custom integrations wi...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Siemplify?
The pricing for Google SecOps and Microsoft Sentinel is almost the same, with no significant differences.
What needs improvement with Siemplify?
The main improvement could be in the accuracy and detail provided in threat descriptions. Google SecOps reports could...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
Comparing pricing to Micro Focus, they were offering bundles, making it free with their SIEM. For customers, it is ze...
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
To improve the solution, it needs to have complete features that are low-code, no-code, and should be plug-and-play. ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Siemplify ThreatNexus
Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
FedEx Mondelez Intenrational Check Point Trustwave Atos Cyberint Bae Systems Crowe Longwall Security Telefonica Nordea HCL
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 Google Security Operations vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
880,315 professionals have used our research since 2012.