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

Cyware Cyber Fusion vs Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR 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)
Cyware Cyber Fusion
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
22nd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (30th)
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)
 

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 Cyware Cyber Fusion is 1.7%, up from 1.0% 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. 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%
Cyware Cyber Fusion1.7%
Other85.8%
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.
AhmedKonsowa - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Pre-Sales Engineer (Commercial Sector) at Cyber Knight
A stable solution with excellent features and a helpful technical support team
We use the solution for cyber fusion centers The product has a lot of strong points compared to other tools. The prices must be reduced. I have been using the solution for one year. I am using the latest version of the solution. I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten. In my company,…
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We have seen fewer failures of automations from the time Torq came into the picture, we've had a more streamlined process of handling incidents, and at the same time, we've learned to embed the AI into our incident types, and that is how it has helped us in the automation."
"What I liked the most about Torq is the actual workflow builder, which is really great because they offer a lot of features and convenience features that are useful for any automation engineer."
"If I review about 100 vendors that I might work with, Torq is definitely in the top five that gave me personally investment back, just because every bit of effort I put into Torq eventually became a workflow that gave it back to me."
"According to positive outcomes, Torq reduced manual work and made incident response more efficient."
"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"As an analyst, it has demonstrated potential to reduce workforce requirements and time needed for related activities."
"Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes."
"Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq."
"The product is stable."
"The technical support team is helpful."
"The orchestration in XSOAR is significantly easier compared to other SOAR tools I've used."
"The biggest advantage of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR for us and our clients is the support that we are getting from Palo Alto Networks."
"I have found the solution very useful, it integrates well with other platforms."
"What I like most about Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is how user-friendly it is for development. It is much simpler to work with compared to similar tools I've used."
"It was easy to integrate Cortex with existing infrastructure and other tech tools."
"What I like about the Cortex team is that they have a dedicated select center where you can get service in minutes and that's extremely helpful."
"What I appreciate most about Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is that it is very open, even more so than Anomali."
"From the security team's standpoint, the solution has improved our organization's overall cybersecurity."
 

Cons

"The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially, and creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers."
"Regarding stability, I have noticed some lagging, crashing, and downtime, which is one of my largest gripes."
"If Torq could enhance its AI features, it would benefit customers significantly by making the platform even more user-friendly."
"Torq can probably use more ML and look at what can be closed and what cannot be closed in terms of data classification."
"Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true."
"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."
"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."
"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"The tool doesn't integrate well with ServiceNow."
"The prices must be reduced."
"The price of the solution could be improved."
"There should be an on-premise version available for customers to have different choices."
"Customization and performance can be improved. For example, some formats were incompatible when integrating, and they said we needed to work with the vendor to fix this issue because some logs that AVA logs were not compatible, and it did not readily recognize the format."
"There is room for improvement in terms of the pricing model."
"The price of the solution could be lower."
"It's only one cloud right now. It might be helpful for some companies to have an on-premies option."
"The complexity of Cortex XSOAR has a trade-off with its versatility. The deployment requires integration and the development of integration modules."
"The solution is not a Palo Alto product so technical support is inadequate."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
Information not available
"It is approx $10,000 or $20,000 per year for two user licenses."
"The pricing is fair. The pricing reflects the value and feature set it offers."
"There is a yearly license required for this solution and it is expensive."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is expensive."
"It's cheaper compared to its competitors."
"There is a perception that it is priced very high compared to other solutions."
"The solution's cost is reasonable."
"The solution is a bit on the expensive side."
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%
Comms Service Provider
19%
Healthcare Company
11%
Construction Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise32
 

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
CSOL, Fusion and Threat Response, Threat Intelligence eXchange, Security Orchestration and Automation (SOAR)
Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Information Not Available
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 Cyware Cyber Fusion vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.