We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiSOAR 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."Investigations are something really remarkable. We can drill down right to the raw logs by running different queries and getting those on the console itself."
"It's easy to use. It's a very good product. It can easily ingest data from anywhere. It has an easily understandable language to perform actions."
"Sentinel has an intuitive, user-friendly way to visualize the data properly. It gives me a solid overview of all the logs. We get a more detailed view that I can't get from the other SIEM tools. It has some IP and URL-specific allow listing"
"The UI of Sentinel is very good and easy to use, even for beginners."
"The AI and ML of Azure Sentinel are valuable. We can use machine learning models at the tenant level and within Office 365 and Microsoft stack. We don't need to depend upon any other connectors. It automatically provisions the native Microsoft products."
"The most valuable feature is the performance because unlike legacy SIEMs that were on-premises, it does not require as much maintenance."
"Its inbuilt Kusto Query Language is a valuable feature. It provides the flexibility needed to leverage advanced data analytics rules and policies and enables us to easily navigate all our security events in a single view. It helps any user easily understand the data or any security lags in their data and applications."
"I believe one of the main advantages is Microsoft Sentinel's seamless integration with other Microsoft products."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiSOAR is the playbook, which has to be defined to apply the policies."
"It has a quick detection and response time."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiSOAR is the number of available connectors and the simplicity to start to automate."
"It is a scalable solution...The implementation phase of the product was not tough or difficult."
"We use the product for security."
"The product can be automated for network security purposes. The solution offers a great security automation response."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The solution is easy to implement and includes 450 built-in connectors."
"Palo Alto has gotten the investigators more presence to actually go in the report because being that the platform will email the investigator that it's been assigned to, now the investigators will jump in there and start going through the review process a lot quicker."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It has an extensive list of integrations that are available out of the box which makes it easy to start."
"The solution is very reliable."
"The most valuable feature is its capability to automate responses and collect information for any security event before you even delve into the details. It's a vast product with an active roadmap, so I'm satisfied with it for now. It's very efficient at data collection and correlation."
"It is quite scalable. I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"The product can automate security tasks."
"The most valuable features are simplicity and ease of integration."
"We'd like also a better ticketing system, which is older."
"Microsoft Sentinel is relatively expensive, and its cost should be improved."
"The KQL query does not function effectively with Windows 11 machines, and in the majority of machine-based investigations, KQL queries are essential for organizing the data during investigations."
"We've seen delays in getting the logs from third-party solutions and sometimes Microsoft products as well. It would be helpful if Microsoft created a list of the delays. That would make things more transparent for customers."
"If their UI was a bit more streamlined and easy to find when I need it, then that would be a great improvement."
"Everyone has their favorites. There is always room for improvement, and everybody will say, "I wish you could do this for me or that for me." It is a personal thing based on how you use the tool. I do not necessarily have those thoughts, and they are probably not really valuable because they are unique to the context of the user, but broadly, where it can continue to improve is by adding more connectors to more systems."
"We'd like to see more connectors."
"I would like to be able to monitor applications outside of the Azure Cloud."
"The UI design of the solution needs to be changed since it can get difficult for a newbie to operate."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Fortinet FortiSOAR's dashboard is not easy to understand."
"I have found that Fortinet FortiSOAR needs a lot of improvement. The Orchestration needs to be improved."
"Fortinet's tech support overall is not great when they are at their best."
"The solution doesn't connect well with the network devices."
"I don't currently see where the solution is lacking features. For us and for our clients it works very well and we're pleased with it."
"Fortinet FortiSOAR should improve its analysis."
"XSOAR could have more integration options."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve the Panorama feature. We had to turn it off because it was not working properly."
"Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR could improve the look, feel, and management of the cloud console. Additionally, the user could be more easily integrated."
"The formats are not compatible, are readily not available, and are not readable."
"I would love to see more flexibility on what we can display and design on the dashboards."
"In terms of improvement, it needs to be more modular. It's not. When you're working in layouts and you create specific apps within layouts, there's no portability right now in order to reuse that code across multiple layouts. I can't take a tab and say I want to use this tab on these other layouts. I have to physically go in there and recreate it from scratch, which is maddening."
"The dashboard performance could be improved."
"There should be an on-premise version available for customers to have different choices."
More Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiSOAR is ranked 10th in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 11 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is ranked 2nd in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 40 reviews. Fortinet FortiSOAR is rated 7.4, while Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiSOAR writes "A stable solution that has a number of available connectors and is simple to automate". 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". Fortinet FortiSOAR is most compared with Splunk SOAR, Swimlane, ServiceNow Security Operations, Cisco SecureX and D3 Security, whereas Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR is most compared with Cortex XSIAM, Splunk SOAR, Swimlane, IBM Resilient and ServiceNow Security Operations. See our Fortinet FortiSOAR 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.