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

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR vs ThreatQ comparison

 

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

Palo Alto Networks Cortex X...
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
47
Ranking in other categories
SOC as a Service (2nd)
ThreatQ
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
22nd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is 10.1%, down from 12.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatQ is 1.1%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

NikhilSharma2 - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to multiple playbooks to fetch data from multiple firewalls and utomated several tasks, including vulnerability scans and SOCL (Security Orchestration, Automation
Recently, they started implementing microservices in XSOAR, which has improved quality and addressed previous issues. However, they should focus more on licensing costs. The user licensing fees are quite high. For example, I received a quote for XSOAR, and it was $12,000 per user per year. If you have a SOC team of 30 members/analysts, you're looking at a substantial expense. They should consider reducing these costs since this high pricing seems to be more about profit. So, there is room for improvement in the pricing. Moreover, the reporting and dashboard features are decent but could be improved. The user interface (UI) is quite heavy and takes time to load, which is a major drawback.
Yasir Akram - PeerSpot reviewer
Good reporting and pretty stable but needs to be simpler to use
The support team of ThreatQ set up a VM on our VPN, which was SlashNext's private VPN. Then we just initiated some system calls and ThreatQ provided us the configuration file with our settings (like our email, our API key, our URL, our category, etc.). They set up a VM on our private VPN cloud. And then they provided us the configuration file in which we just entered our details like our company URL, our API category, and API keys et cetera. We could just add it on the configuration file. We just uploaded it to the ThreatQ server. After running the system calls, we just initiated the ThreatQ and then performed tasks on the UI, such as categorizing the reports. If we only wanted the report for phishing, then we just manipulated the data on the UI and just extracted the reports. That's all. The deployment was complex. We used high hardware specifications. I don't remember the exact specifications, however, I recall them being high. There were some services that had some compatibility errors. That's why we had our VMs - to make sure that the customer would not face any errors. Everything's deployed with high specifications and custom specifications. That was the biggest challenge for us - to deploy on the customer VMs. On average, deployment takes 15-20 minutes if it's deployed without any errors. I was with one of the NetOps network admin during deployment. We were only two people and we just deployed and installed all services and we executed the deployment.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature is automation."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The automation part and the playbook creation part are awesome. The way it is responding to the customers and incidents is also very good. In the SOC environment, I guess it will carry out around 50% of the work."
"The solution provides threat intelligence with EDR."
"Palo Alto is easy to use."
"The solution is easy to deploy."
"The orchestration in XSOAR is significantly easier compared to other SOAR tools I've used."
"Cortex XSOAR's playbook for incident management and automation is highly valuable."
"Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy."
"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."
 

Cons

"There should be an on-premise version available for customers to have different choices."
"It is been decommissioned by Palo Alto."
"XSOAR could have more integration options."
"There is room for improvement in terms of the pricing model."
"We need a little hands-on experience to install the solution."
"Its dashboard features need improvement."
"I would love to see more flexibility on what we can display and design on the dashboards."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve the Panorama feature. We had to turn it off because it was not working properly."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is comparable to other solutions in the market."
"The solution is a bit on the expensive side."
"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."
"The pricing is fair. The pricing reflects the value and feature set it offers."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is expensive."
"The solution's pricing needs improvement."
"From the cost perspective, I have heard that its price is a bit high as compared to other similar products."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
24%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
Even though customers often comment on the price, the potential savings come from managing a large number of security events with a limited number of analysts. This leads to economic advantages des...
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR?
For Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, there is always room for improvement. One of the significant issues we encounter is system slowdown when we receive an influx of alerts, which inhibits how quic...
What do you like most about ThreatQ?
Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy.
What needs improvement with ThreatQ?
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 playb...
What is your primary use case for ThreatQ?
We used the solution for threat mapping and managing IoCs.
 

Also Known As

Demisto Enterprise, Cortex XSOAR, Demisto
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

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: July 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.