We performed a comparison between AWS Security Hub and Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Microsoft Sentinel provides the capability to integrate different log sources. On top of having several data connectors in place, you can also do integration with a threat intelligence platform to enhance and enrich the data that's available. You can collect as many logs and build all the use cases."
"The most valuable features in my experience are the UEBA, LDAP, the threat scheduler, and integration with third-party straight perform like the MISP."
"It has basic out-of-the-box integrations with multiple log sources."
"The most valuable feature is the performance because unlike legacy SIEMs that were on-premises, it does not require as much maintenance."
"The AI capability is one of the main features of the solution because I believe that in the market, there are few solutions that are providing security solutions based on AI and machine learning."
"Mainly, this is a cloud-native product. So, there are zero concerns about managing the whole infrastructure on-premises."
"The part that was very unexpected was Sentinel's ability to integrate with Azure Lighthouse, which, as a managed services solution provider, gives us the ability to also manage our customers' Sentinel environments or Sentinel workspaces. It is a big plus for us. With its integration with Lighthouse, we get the ability to monitor multiple workspaces from one portal. A lot of the Microsoft Sentinel workbooks already integrate with that capability, and we save countless amounts of money by simply being able to almost immediately realize multitenant capabilities. That alone is a big plus for us."
"What is most useful, is that it has a good connection to the Microsoft ecosystem, and I think that's the key part."
"Cloudposse is a valuable feature as it guarantees my security."
"The most valuable feature of AWS Security Hub is the ability to track when monitoring is not enabled on any of my resources."
"The platform has valuable features for security."
"It's a security posture management tool from AWS. Basically, it identifies misconfigurations, similar to Trusted Advisor but on a larger scale."
"Currently, our organization utilizes AWS for various purposes, including SaaS (Software as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service), and hosting applications in the cloud. We develop our applications and use AWS services as a platform for basic functions and secondary development needs. Additionally, we rely on PaaS for accounting services. Approximately, 50% of our applications are hosted in the cloud environment, making it a significant part of our current setup."
"AWS Security Hub has very good integration features. It allows for AWS native services integration, and it helps us to integrate some of the services outside of AWS. They have partners, such as Amazon Preferred Network Partners (APN). If you have different security tools around APN, we can integrate those findings with AWS Security Hub reducing the need to refer to different portals or different UIs. You can have AWS Security Hub act as a single common go-to dashboard."
"The solution shows us our compliance score."
"I find all of the features to be highly valuable."
"The solution is user-friendly and easy to configure."
"It’s easy to install."
"I have no complaints about Cortex's stability."
"Palo Alto is easy to use."
"The Palo Alto ecosystem has a marketplace offering integration with Sentinel or other products."
"The solution is very reliable."
"For organizations that are stable with their security operations, like those with around 50 members in their security team running full-phased operations 24/7, Cortex is necessary."
"I am satisfied with the product overall."
"One key area that can be improved is by building a strong integration with our XDR platform."
"The performance could be improved. If I create 15 to 20 lines for a single-use case in KQL, sometimes it takes more time to execute. If I create use cases within a certain timeline, the result will show in .01 seconds. A complex query takes more time to get results."
"The interface could be more user-friendly. It''s a small improvement that they could make if they wanted to."
"They could use some kind of workbook. There is some limitation doing the editing and creating the workbook."
"The reporting could be more structured."
"If I can use Sentinel offline at home and use it on a local network, it would be great. I'm not sure if I can use Sentinel offline versus the tools I have."
"At the network level, there is a limitation in integrating some of the switches or routers with Microsoft Sentinel. Currently, SPAN traffic monitoring is not available in Microsoft Sentinel. I have heard that it is available in Defender for Identity, which is a different product. It would be good if LAN traffic monitoring or SPAN traffic monitoring is available in Microsoft Sentinel. It would add a lot of value. It is available in some of the competitor products in the market."
"Microsoft should improve Sentinel, considering that from the legacy systems, it cannot collect logs."
"The user interface, graphs, and dashboards of the solution could improve in the future. They are not very sophisticated and could use an update."
"It is not flexible for multi-cloud environments."
"From an improvement perspective, there is a need to add more compliance since, right now, AWS Security Hub only provides four to five compliances to control the tool."
"The solution lacks self-sufficiency."
"The solution should be easier to learn and use"
"AWS Security Hub should improve the time it takes to update. It takes a long period of time when updating. It can take 24 hours sometimes to update. Additionally, when integrating this solution with more security tools, takes time."
"The support must be quicker."
"We need more granular-level customizations to enable or disable the rules in AWS Security Hub."
"The integration could be better. Cortex, for example, does not work with iPhone."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve the Panorama feature. We had to turn it off because it was not working properly."
"The solution is very expensive."
"The solution's technical support could be better."
"The solution's correlation rules and playbooks should be improved."
"It is not a very scalable solution."
"With Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, managing its setup phase can be a complicated task."
"The solution is complicated to learn."
More Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS Security Hub is ranked 5th in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 17 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is ranked 2nd in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 42 reviews. AWS Security Hub is rated 7.6, while Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of AWS Security Hub writes "A centralized dashboard that enables efficient monitoring and management of possible security issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR writes "Enables the investigators to go through the review process a lot quicker". AWS Security Hub is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Google Chronicle Suite and Elastic Security, whereas Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is most compared with Cortex XSIAM, Splunk SOAR, Fortinet FortiSOAR and Swimlane. See our AWS Security Hub vs. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR report.
See our list of best Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) vendors.
We monitor all Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
