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

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR vs ThreatQ 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)
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)
ThreatQ
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
26th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (23rd)
 

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 Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is 8.9%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatQ is 1.4%, up from 1.1% 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%
ThreatQ1.4%
Other86.1%
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.
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.
reviewer2384535 - PeerSpot reviewer
Threat Intelligence Lead at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Improves the threat intelligence gathering process, but it is not user-friendly
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 playbook is a little difficult for a beginner. The vendor must simplify the tool and make it user-friendly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Torq offers the best feature through integration with AI."
"Torq's unified platform approach to AI, SOAR, automation, and case management is superior compared to my experience managing multiple point solutions."
"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."
"Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes."
"With Torq, I automate actions while achieving SLA compliance and streamline alert investigation processes much better."
"What I appreciate most about Torq is that it is an essential part of our system."
"Once I started to use the system and I saw the potential, it changed all of our work in IT."
"Since we started working with Torq, I am handling much fewer alerts, it is becoming really easy for me to handle an alert, I have all the information that I need, I do not need to connect to different vendors to receive this information, and the main thing I got from Torq is time, which now helps me to build another automated system and learn."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is a good product with enhanced and efficient playbooks, as demonstrated during our use case simulations."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is the number one security platform, so their response also rates highly."
"The playbook automation helped streamline my incident response time by removing delays from the human side and reducing the mean time to respond."
"I'm using Cortex XSOAR to manage our network security."
"Palo Alto has reduced the time that it takes to go through the process of investigating a reported abuse."
"My impression is that Demisto is scalable and it is capable of working across wide geography at any given point in time."
"The performance is great."
"I am satisfied with the product overall."
"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."
"Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy."
 

Cons

"Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true."
"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."
"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."
"I wish Torq's AI assistant for building templated workflows from scratch worked better; when you start with a blank slate, asking AI to help you build or template the workflow out does not go well."
"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."
"If Torq could enhance its AI features, it would benefit customers significantly by making the platform even more user-friendly."
"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."
"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."
"The configuration of the solution could improve it is difficult."
"The biggest area for improvement is simplifying playbook development and debugging."
"I would like to see Cortex become less dependent on Active Directory and group policies to manage the deployment. Maybe I need to update my understanding of how to deploy it, but that's the way I know how to use it."
"The price of the solution could be lower."
"The solution requires DV but does not support open-source DV elastic searches."
"In terms of improvement, it needs to be more modular. It's not. When you're working in layouts and you create specific apps within layouts, there's no portability right now in order to reuse that code across multiple layouts. I can't take a tab and say I want to use this tab on these other layouts. I have to physically go in there and recreate it from scratch, which is maddening."
"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's technical support could be better."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is expensive."
"From the cost perspective, I have heard that its price is a bit high as compared to other similar products."
"It is expensive."
"The solution's cost is reasonable."
"The solution is expensive."
"There is a perception that it is priced very high compared to other solutions."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is a low price, and ten is a high price, I rate the pricing a nine."
"There is a yearly license required for this solution and it is expensive."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
908,877 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
10%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Healthcare 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 Business27
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise32
No data available
 

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 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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Cellcom Israel, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, esri, Cylance, Flatiron Health, Veeva, ADT Cybersecurity
Radar, Bitdefender, Crowdstrike, FireEye, IBM Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR vs. ThreatQ and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.