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

D3 Security 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)
D3 Security
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
21st
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Security Incident Response (11th), AI-Powered Security Automation (6th)
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 D3 Security is 2.2%, up from 0.6% 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%
D3 Security2.2%
Other85.3%
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.
Muhammad Aamir Riaz - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager Security Operation Center at The Bank of Punjab
Offers open API for integrating any available tools without any recurring costs
Before committing, I recommend a Proof of Concept (POC) or demo first. This way, you can see if the product aligns with your specific use cases and security needs. Knowledge transfer is key, and D3 Security's team excels in this area. During the POC, your analysts gain valuable product knowledge, putting them ahead of the curve for deployment. In our case, the learning curve was steep initially, but by the end of the POC, my team was already building playbooks independently. D3 Security also schedules dedicated knowledge transfer sessions during the POC, making it a win-win for both parties. Since technology transfer is crucial for government entities like ours, this approach eliminates the need for additional learning after deployment, unlike with certain competitors like the Fortinet FortiSOAR case. While Fortinet FortiSOAR achieved the desired tasks, its knowledge transfer process was lacking, leaving us with a shaky foundation. D3 Security's approach solidifies the learning and empowers our team. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.
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

"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."
"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."
"According to positive outcomes, Torq reduced manual work and made incident response more efficient."
"Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq."
"Torq has helped a lot regarding SOC analyst efficiency."
"Torq offers the best feature through integration with AI."
"With Torq, I automate actions while achieving SLA compliance and streamline alert investigation processes much better."
"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."
"The solution's valuable feature is its GUI. It has more than 450 connectors, which are excellent for connecting devices and automating integration. The solution has all the features we need. We deployed it in our environment, and it's fully integrated. Thanks to their open APIs, the seamless integration makes everything work well together."
"It is an out-of-the-box automated integration with our 20 departments. We perform L1 LiveOps automatically through the portal."
"The playbook automation helped streamline my incident response time by removing delays from the human side and reducing the mean time to respond."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR has impacted my organization positively because it has these automations and customized workflows."
"They have a portal where you can find any kind of integration that you need."
"I would rate the stability of Cortex XSOAR as nine out of ten."
"Cortex XSOAR's most valuable features are the playbooks, custom integration, the machine-learning model, and the layout, classifier, and mapper."
"Its agility and scalability are valuable."
"The drag-and-drop interface enables analysts with no programming knowledge to create playbooks easily."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR has had a positive impact on the mean time to resolution for incidents (MTTR), as it has significantly reduced noise."
 

Cons

"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."
"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."
"If Torq could enhance its AI features, it would benefit customers significantly by making the platform even more user-friendly."
"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."
"Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true."
"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."
"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 reporting, especially custom reporting, needs to be improved. Additionally, it would be better if it could be hosted on Linux."
"Reporting needs improvement. MTTR and MTTD metrics aren't directly available in playbooks and require manual effort to achieve."
"XSOAR could have more integration options."
"The solution is very expensive."
"For building automation, there is not a lot of good documentation. The documentation is there, but it is not very good from my perspective. There should be an improvement in this area. I don't see issues with anything else. In terms of new features, I have heard that other products have EBA functionality. It would be good if this functionality could be added."
"The solution's technical support could be better."
"I did notice some drawbacks, as it is a bit complex."
"For building automation, there is not a lot of good documentation. The documentation is there, but it is not very good from my perspective."
"The integration could be better. Cortex, for example, does not work with iPhone."
"With Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, managing its setup phase can be a complicated task."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
Information not available
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could be reduced. We are always looking for a discount. There is an annual license needed to use this solution."
"The solution's cost is high."
"Cortex XSOAR's price could be lower."
"When I first looked at Demisto, it had a price tag of $250,000 but when we finally purchased it, it was $345,000."
"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."
"My company did not make any payments towards the licensing costs attached to the product since we were only using its pilot version."
"From the cost perspective, I have heard that its price is a bit high as compared to other similar products."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
908,858 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
25%
Computer Software Company
14%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Construction Company
10%
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
No data available
Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
S&P Global, Scotiabank, Cybereason, Cummins
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 D3 Security vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,858 professionals have used our research since 2012.