Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR Reviews

The solution is used for security. 

Palo Alto is easy to use. 

The dashboard could be better. 

I have used Palo Alto Network Cortex for six months. 

There are issues with stability as it was giving false positives and has bugs. I rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. There are two hundred users using the solution at present. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The solution was deployed by analysts. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

I'm currently evaluating XSOAR to see what the solution can do. I'm playing around with the various features. 

The drag-and-drop interface enables analysts with no programming knowledge to create playbooks easily. 

XSOAR could have more integration options. 

I have used XSOAR for two months.

XSOAR is stable. 

Setting up XSOAR is straightforward and takes about 30 minutes. It doesn't require any special technology to implement it in any architecture.  You create a virtual machine, move the file to it, launch the installer, and let it run. It doesn't require any complex tasks. 

I rate Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR nine out of 10. 

We use the solution to create playbooks for all the operational programs.

The solution's integration with non-security solutions will be helpful.

We have been using the solution for almost two years now.

The solution is stable. I rate its stability an eight.

I rate the solution's scalability as an eight. It is complex to scale.

The solution's technical support team takes longer to reply to the queries.

Neutral

The solution's initial setup process is straightforward.

The solution's cost is reasonable. I rate its pricing as a five.

I rate the solution an eight.

We are using Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR for automation.

The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR are its overall track record and features that fit our use case.

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve the Panorama feature. We had to turn it off because it was not working properly.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR for approximately six months.

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is a stable solution.

The scalability of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is fine for what we are using it for.

We have our SecOps department of user 50 people that are using the solution for alerts. We plan to increase usage in the future.

The support from Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve. However, a lot of the support is poor.

We have three people in the security operations that do the maintenance and support of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is comparable to other solutions in the market.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR a six out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for network inspection.

The solution works well.

It’s easy to install.

It’s stable.

The solution can scale as needed.

The stability could be better.

The integration could be better. Cortex, for example, does not work with iPhone.

I’ve been using the solution for less than one year.

Right now, it’s been stable for us. We may consider something from Microsoft in the future. It’s possible it could be more stable.

The solution is quite scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

At the moment, we don’t actually get support from Palo Alto as we’ve never needed any help. I can’t say how helpful or responsive they would be.

We’ve also worked with CrowdStrike. We switched as we weren’t happy with their detection capabilities.

The installation is very easy to set up. It’s not overly complex or difficult.

The deployment took less than a week. I recall we had it up and running within a couple of days.

In our case, we went to a consultant for installation assistance. However, a company might likely be able to handle it on its own.

I can’t speak to the exact cost of the solution.

This is a SaaS product.

I’d rate the solution nine out of ten.

I'm using Cortex XSOAR to manage our network security.

I've been using Cortex XSOAR for about one year.

I have no complaints about Cortex's stability.

As far as I know, Cortex XSOAR's scalability is okay. I'm just a user, so I don't know.

Setting up Cortex is straightforward. This use case is the easiest to implement. I had help from two or three technicians.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR eight out of 10. I would recommend it to others.

We use Palo Alto as a firewall, a system for detecting and whitelisting certain IP addresses or to block certain IP addresses based on where they're coming from. We then send the logs to another log management tool for more forensics and analysis before we make a decision.

We're basically using Palo Alto for firewalling and sending those logs to another security monitoring tool to make decisions based on analytics that it provides us.

The solution is very reliable. The performance is great.

The scalability of the solution is excellent. 

We find the solution to be very robust. Palo Alto has been in the industry a long time and the solution reflects that.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not hard to deploy.

The solution is very expensive. They would get more clients if it wasn't so pricey.

I've been using the solution for about four years at this time. It's been a while. 

The solution is very reliable in terms of performance. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches.

The solution is extremely scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so easily.

The technical support has been very good. Palo Alto is top of the line. They've been in the industry a long time and their support team reflects that knowledge. We are very satisfied with their level of support.

I also work with Fortinet. We've used them for around the same amount of time.

We found the initial setup to be quite straightforward. It's not hard to do. A company shouldn't have too much of a problem getting it up and running.

I cannot speak to the exact cost of the solution or how much our organization pays.

However, it is my understanding that the product is extremely expensive.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using at this time.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been quite pleased with its capabilities. The only thing is it is pretty expensive.

I'd recommend other users work both with Palo Alto and Fortinet. They are great together. They compliment each other nicely.

I primarily pitch and sell this solution to our customers. We do product assessments and consult with customers for the most part.

Clients can use it for automation. 

The solution has very good integration capabilities. It's really the best at integration. Inside every integration, there are certain commands which we can call upon, which makes it very useful as a product.

The automation is excellent. 

The product is very robust.

With this solution, we can do dynamic remediation.

It's a product that is constantly upgrading and improving.

It's a user-friendly solution.

Technical support is very helpful and responsive.

We'd like to be able to add as many integrations as possible. We would like more options for our clients. 

A few times, I have noticed some bugs. That may be due to the fact that they are consistently upgrading the product. With new releases, a few bugs might get through.

The solution is expensive. They should work to make it less costly for the customer.

I've been working with the solution for the past five years or so at this point. It's been a while. 

There are a few bugs here and there when new releases happen. We've used it from version four all the way to version six and have dealt with a few bugs, however, that is expected. That's always some in any products. It's fine for us.

Mostly, the stability is okay. The integration keeps on triggering every time. It has jobs that are learning all the time. It's based on completely API integrations. As long as there is compatibility, the solution is pretty available. It is always ready to go.

We haven't tried to scale, however, as per the technical documents which I have read, it should be understood by the customer before it is deployed. It all depends on how many integrations or how many triggering points a company has. You need to have an idea of the scope. Remediation can take a minute or two, however, it will still be possible. There isn't too much of a concern for scaling right now.

We have one or two customers using the solution for their own purposes. We are consulting with two more customers. We do plan to increase usage in the future. 

We've dealt with technical support in the past. They're 100% responsive and they have a lot of channels in which to talk to them. You can always get a hold of them and they are very knowledgeable. We are quite satisfied with their level of support.

Initially, we found the implementation to be a bit difficult. However, now we have done it quite a few times for clients, and we find it to be very straightforward and simple. You get used to the process. You learn how to do it. It's simple.

We implement the solution for our clients as consultants. 

The licensing is paid on a yearly basis. It is quite expensive. 

When Palo Alto bought the solution, the pricing increased by 1.5 times. There's been a 50% increase, which is a lot. 

We are a partner for Palo Alto. I have been certified with them. I did certifications around their certificates when they were Demisto, however, right now, we are Palo Alto partners.

It's not a SIEM product, however, it's a next-gen automation platform for SIEM SOC services.

I'd advise companies considering the solution to assess the existing environment before they go ahead and choose something. This solution is basically built for a vast organization or a medium and big organization. Smaller organizations have other options which are available to them that might be more appropriate. 

Companies should assess the product before it's brought on, as the cost is high. Businesses need to check their budget around that, and whether it will be flexible or not. 

It's also important to have a proper engineering and design team to implement that product.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten overall.