We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and Swimlane 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."Sentinel uses Azure Logic Apps for automation, which is really powerful. This allows us to easily automate responses to incidents."
"The connectivity and analytics are great."
"The best feature is that onboarding to the SIM solution is quite easy. If you are using cloud-based solutions, it's just a few clicks to migrate it."
"It is easy to implement (turn on) - does need a skilled analyst to develop queries and playbooks."
"It has a lot of great features."
"The initial setup is very simple and straightforward."
"The scalability is great. You can put unlimited logs in, as long as you can pay for it. There are commitment tiers, up to six terabytes per day, which is nowhere close to what any one of our customers is running."
"Sentinel's most important feature is the ability to centralize all the logs in one place. There's no need to search multiple systems for information."
"The product can automate security tasks."
"The most valuable feature is automation."
"It was useful as a ticketing tool."
"It is quite scalable. I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"It’s easy to install."
"The solution is very reliable."
"It is a scalable solution."
"I am satisfied with the product overall."
"The technical support from Swimlane is very good."
"It provides us with a single portal for our logs from different solutions."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the support."
"Sentinel provides decent visibility, but it's sometimes a little cumbersome to get to the information I want because there is so much information. I would also like to see more seamless integration between Sentinel and third-party security products."
"Given that I am in the small business space, I wish they would make it easier to operate Sentinel without being a Sentinel expert. Examples of things that could be easier are creating alerts and automations from scratch and designing workbooks."
"The data connectors for third-party tools could be improved, as some aren't available in Sentinel. They need to be available in the data connector panel."
"Sentinel's reporting is complex and can be more user-friendly."
"Sentinel can be used in two ways. With other tools like QRadar, I don't need to run queries. Using Sentinel requires users to learn KQL to run technical queries and check things. If they don't know KQL, they can't fully utilize the solution."
"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."
"It could have a better API to be able to automate many things more extensively and get more extensive data and more expensive deployment possibilities. It can gain some points on the automation part and the integration part. The API is very limited, and I would like to see it extended a bit more."
"I would like to be able to monitor applications outside of the Azure Cloud."
"The solution's correlation rules and playbooks should be improved."
"Its dashboard features need improvement."
"The configuration of the solution could improve it is difficult."
"When Palo Alto bought the solution, the pricing increased by 1.5 times. There's been a 50% increase, which is a lot."
"We need a little hands-on experience to install the solution."
"The user interface could be a bit better."
"The solution should be made a bit cheaper."
"The tool’s multi-tenancy feature must be improved."
"We faced a lot of issues with the product’s stability."
"The initial setup and deployment are complex."
"The stability of the solution has room for improvement."
More Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is ranked 2nd in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 42 reviews while Swimlane is ranked 17th in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 3 reviews. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is rated 8.4, while Swimlane is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR writes "Enables the investigators to go through the review process a lot quicker". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Swimlane writes "Great support, scalable, and easier to code". Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is most compared with Cortex XSIAM, Splunk SOAR, Fortinet FortiSOAR, IBM Resilient and ServiceNow Security Operations, whereas Swimlane is most compared with Splunk SOAR, Tines, Fortinet FortiSOAR, ServiceNow Security Operations and Cyware Fusion and Threat Response. See our Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR vs. Swimlane 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.