AI SOC platform for triaging, investigating, and responding to security alerts
Torq is an AI SOC platform for enterprise security operations teams.
AI Panel Score
6 AI reviews
Reviewed
AI Editor ApprovedApproved and published by our AI Editor-in-Chief after full panel analysis.Torq is built around the idea that not every security alert needs a human to review it. The platform uses AI agents to triage incoming alerts, investigate them by pulling in relevant context, and carry out response actions, with human analysts stepping in for cases that genuinely require judgment. This is delivered through what Torq calls an AI SOC Platform, aimed at enterprise-scale security operations centers.
The platform pairs agentic SecOps with hyperautomation, meaning it combines AI-driven decision-making with automated workflows that execute response actions. Torq lists specific use cases including cloud misconfiguration detection and remediation, contextual threat intelligence enrichment, identity threat detection and response (ITDR), automated SOC incident response, and self-service employee chatbots. It also integrates with categories of tools spanning cloud security posture management (CSPM), threat intelligence, identity and access management (IAM), threat hunting, and productivity/chatbot platforms.
Torq is aimed at enterprise security operations teams looking to increase SOC capacity without proportionally increasing headcount. The website does not disclose specific pricing details or plan tiers; prospective customers are directed to request a demo.
AI agents that autonomously triage, investigate, and respond to security alerts alongside human analysts.
Provides chatbot interfaces that let employees self-service common security and IT requests.
A learning system that retains context and memory across investigations rather than just recalling past data, improving over time.
Automatically enriches security alerts with contextual threat intelligence to speed up investigation.
Automates identity and access management tasks and workflows within security operations.
Automates end-to-end incident response processes within the security operations center.
Automatically triages incoming security alerts to reduce the volume that requires human review.
An end-to-end platform combining agentic AI and hyperautomation to run security operations at enterprise scale.
Integrates with cloud security posture management tools to feed automated detection and response workflows.
Detects cloud misconfigurations and automates remediation workflows to reduce exposure.
Detects and responds to identity- and cloud-access-based threats through automated workflows.
Monitors email inboxes and automates remediation actions for detected phishing attempts.
Pricing requires contacting the vendor. Torq publishes no pricing page and no list prices; every pricing path on torq.io routes through a "Get a Demo" request.
Real automation depth, but quote-only pricing means you're flying blind until the demo call.
“Torq brings agentic AI to SOC triage with named capabilities like HyperAgents and SOC Brain. No published pricing and no free trial means real diligence work before you sign.”
No pricing page. No trial. Just 'request a demo' and named tiers like Essential with monthly AI credit quotas. That's a sales-led enterprise motion, and it tells you this isn't built for a quick pilot.
The features are specific and real: Auto Triage, SOC Brain retaining context across investigations, a fraud-response use case with a regional bank on Zelle. That's not vaporware language. Competes directly with Swimlane and Tines in SOAR, plus emerging AI SOC players.
Two questions before the board call: what's the actual credit-based cost at our alert volume, and can we get a 90-day pilot before committing to workflows-based pricing? Manual override and audit logs are there, which matters for defensibility. Pilot it with a scoped SOC use case, don't sign enterprise-wide blind.
Positions against Swimlane and Tines in SOAR with a distinct agentic AI angle via HyperAgents and Socrates.
Named financial services use case (Zelle fraud response) signals enterprise credibility, but quote-only pricing invites board scrutiny.
No free trial and workflow-based custom pricing means slow procurement before any measurable MTTR gains show up.
Agentic triage and SOC Brain context retention advance SOC capacity rather than just cutting cost on existing tools.
Backed by a $140M Series D at a $1.2B valuation in January 2026, $332M raised in total, alongside a sales-led enterprise motion.
Enterprise SOC teams drowning in alert volume who can commit to a sales-led pilot.
Avoid if your team needs transparent self-serve pricing or a fast trial before committing budget.
Autonomous SOC agents that reduce triage load, but the audit and governance model needs board-level scrutiny before rollout.
“Torq's HyperAgents and SOC Brain push agentic automation deeper into incident response than most SOAR incumbents attempt. The tradeoff: quote-based pricing makes risk modeling and 3-year TCO harder to pin down before contract.”
HyperAgents plus SOC Brain is a real architectural bet: agents that carry memory across investigations rather than replaying static playbooks. If this holds up at scale, my analysts stop drowning in duplicate false positives and MTTR actually moves. That's a legitimate capability gap versus older SOAR tools like Splunk Phantom or Palo Alto XSOAR, which automate but don't learn.
The override and audit-log answer in the buyer FAQ is the right instinct — human-on-the-loop, not fully autonomous by default. But no published pricing page means I can't model blast radius or exit costs before a sales call. That's a governance gap, not just a procurement inconvenience.
Three-year view: if SOC Brain's learning loop is real, you're building institutional memory into a vendor you can't easily replace. If it's marketing, you've automated your alert fatigue problem into a black box. Named use case at a regional bank for Zelle fraud response is a good signal, but one case study isn't a track record.
Positions ahead of traditional SOAR players like Palo Alto XSOAR on autonomous agentic response.
Human-on-the-loop override and audit logs match how mature SOC teams actually want to govern automation.
Integrates across CSPM, IAM, and threat intel categories, with public API docs at developers.torq.io to assess depth.
Learning system creates institutional lock-in — valuable if accurate, costly to unwind if not.
SOC Brain's contextual memory model goes beyond static playbook automation seen in legacy SOAR.
Enterprise SOC teams with named budget for agentic automation and the maturity to govern AI-driven response decisions.
Avoid if your security team needs transparent pricing before committing procurement cycles.
Zero public numbers. Credits, tiers, add-ons — all quote-based, all opaque.
“No pricing page, no list price, no published tiers. Procurement starts from zero leverage.”
No pricing page. Contact Sales is the only tier listed. Costs scale by workflows, integrations, and automation actions — three variables, none quantified.
Mention of 'Essential' tier with monthly AI credit quotas, plus paid credit add-ons. That's a metered model. Category norm for SOAR/AI SOC is enterprise quote-based, so Torq isn't unusual — but compare to Tines or Swimlane, where at least demo-tier ranges leak out. Here, nothing does.
3-year TCO model is guesswork without a quote. Credit overages are the real risk — usage-based AI pricing plus enterprise integration fees compounds fast at scale. No published overage rate means no way to forecast year 2 spend, let alone year 3. Audit logs and override controls are solid governance features. But governance doesn't offset an invisible invoice.
Sales-led onboarding with custom quotes means procurement friction before you see a number.
No published terms; enterprise SOAR deals typically carry multi-year lock-in and negotiated renewal windows.
No list prices, no tier breakdown beyond 'Contact Sales' and a vague 'Essential' mention.
MTTC and alert-volume reduction are measurable claims, but no benchmark numbers are published.
Credit-based add-ons plus integration/workflow-scaled pricing make 3-year cost unpredictable.
Enterprise SOC teams with budget for a negotiated, quote-based platform.
You need visible pricing to build a business case before your first sales call.
Autonomous triage sounds great until you're auditing why HyperAgents closed a real incident.
“Torq bets on agentic AI closing the alert-fatigue gap that Splunk SOAR and Tines automation never fully solved. The audit-log-and-override story is right, and the API reference is public at developers.torq.io to actually vet how deep that control goes.”
'Human-on-the-loop' is the pitch, but the H1 — 'not every alert needs a human' — tells you where the defaults probably sit. That's fine for phishing inbox remediation, less fine when SOC Brain is 'learning from past decisions' on identity threat detection and you're trying to explain a missed IAM escalation to an auditor six months in.
API docs at developers.torq.io, product docs at kb.torq.io, and dated release notes at torq.io/product-updates. What you still can't pressure-test against your own alert volume before a sales call is credit-consumption limits (mentioned for the 'Essential' tier).
Override and audit logs exist, which matters for compliance sign-off. But quote-based pricing with workflow/integration-count tiers means you're negotiating blind on what a bad automation month actually costs you.
Auto Triage and SOC Brain promise reduced alert review; kb.torq.io documents Auto Triage configuration and torq.io/product-updates dates each release, but the tuning burden at your own alert volume is still untested.
developers.torq.io hosts the API reference and kb.torq.io documents Auto Triage, case investigation and 155 integrations in depth; SOC Brain is the part still carried mostly by marketing copy.
Quote-based pricing tied to workflow/integration/action counts adds negotiation friction before a single alert is triaged.
Low-code workflow builder plus named agents (HyperAgents, Socrates) suggest depth, but discoverability of advanced tuning is unverified.
Integrates with CSPM, IAM, and threat intel tools, positioning it inside existing SIEM/SOAR stacks rather than replacing them.
Enterprise SOC teams already running SOAR workflows who need to cut alert volume and can staff a POC to validate override controls.
Avoid if you need transparent pricing before committing engineering time to evaluation.
Torq's docs are wide open, so the only real unknown is how fast 50 credits vanish.
“The knowledge base is open and deep enough to learn the product before anyone calls you back. What you can't learn is how many AI Task credits your own alert volume burns through in a month.”
Torq's knowledge base isn't a marketing page with a login on it. Auto Triage gets its own section, case investigation another, and the integration library runs to 155 documented connectors. Category norm here is a locked door until you talk to sales; this one left the manuals out.
So the shape of the product is knowable. The meter isn't. Essential ships 50 AI Task credits a month, one credit per execution, no rollover, and at 100% the AI Task just fails. Nobody can tell you what 50 buys against your alert volume until you're already paying for it.
The release feed is public and dated, with entries from this month. Analyst override and audit logs are documented, not just promised. But there's no pricing page and no trial, so the one number that decides whether this stays affordable is the one you only learn from the inside.
The docs describe real working surfaces like the Execution Log and case fields, but how they feel at 2am isn't something a manual shows.
Eight documented sections including Auto Triage and Investigate Cases, plus 446 workflow templates, give a new analyst somewhere to start.
Nothing in the docs covers a mobile app or a mobile-usable console, so this one stays unproven.
A 25-article setup section and hundreds of workflow templates are there to read, but entry is still demo-gated with no trial.
Manual override, audit logs and a 90% credit-usage warning are all documented behaviour rather than claims.
Enterprise SOC teams who want to study the whole platform before booking a demo.
Teams who need to model their AI credit spend before they sign anything.
SOAR with an AI coat of paint — Socrates and SOC Brain need proof, not just names.
“Docs and release notes are public; pricing is not — just a demo request and a lot of confidence.”
"Every alert needs attention. Not every alert needs a human." Clean line. Also the exact pitch Swimlane and Tines have been running for years in SOAR. Torq adds agent names — HyperAgents, Socrates, SOC Brain — on top of what reads as the same triage-and-remediate workflow engine. Naming things after philosophers doesn't prove autonomy.
No public pricing. Quote-based only, tiers like 'Essential' with credit quotas mentioned but not priced anywhere visible. That's normal for enterprise security tooling — Palo Alto and CrowdStrike do the same — but it means you can't evaluate cost or lock-in until you're already in a sales call.
Exit story is the real question mark. Workflows, integrations, and "learned" SOC Brain context are exactly the kind of thing that doesn't export cleanly. If Torq stalls, you're rebuilding playbooks elsewhere, not migrating a config file.
Competes directly with Tines, Swimlane, and Torq's own prior SOAR positioning; agentic framing is the main new claim.
SOC Brain's learned context and custom workflows aren't the kind of thing you export to a competitor.
Named financial-services use case (Zelle fraud response) suggests real deployments, and a $140M Series D at a $1.2B valuation in January 2026 puts total funding at $332M.
"End-to-end" and "at enterprise scale" are the kind of superlatives that outrun what's independently verifiable here.
Fits the SOAR-to-AI-SOC pivot pattern seen across the category; not yet distinguished from that pack.
Enterprise SOC teams already committed to SOAR-style automation who want to test agentic triage claims directly with sales.
Avoid if you need transparent pricing or a clean exit path before committing budget.
Common questions answered by our AI research team
Torq SOC Brain is Torq's AI SOC that learns from every decision and historical incident, rather than just remembering — it continuously refines its verdicts based on your team's past decisions and grows more accurate with every case your SOC closes.
Yes. Torq keeps transparent audit logs and offers a manual override option so analysts stay in control of AI-driven triage decisions.
No. Torq's agentic response can run completely autonomously or with human-on-the-loop oversight, letting teams stop threats and remediate root causes while staying in control.
Torq's AI agents agentically de-duplicate events and filter false positives to suppress noise, then deliver clear AI verdicts that prioritize actual threats grounded in the team's past decisions.
Socrates is Torq's natural language-driven Agentic AI that autonomously remediates critical threats, slashing mean time to respond by chasing down answers on complex, prioritized cases.
Who Torq competes with, and how each one differs
The closest pure-play rival in no-code security hyperautomation, targeting the same SOC-workflow-building use case as Torq but without Torq's newer agentic AI investigation layer (SOC Brain, AI SOC Context Graph).
Sells security automation as Cortex XSOAR, bundled into its broader platform rather than sold standalone, and mainly serves enterprises already committed to the Palo Alto stack rather than platform-agnostic SOC teams.
Splunk SOAR (formerly Phantom) is the legacy playbook-based automation incumbent, now maintained under Cisco ownership since its 2024 acquisition, with less investment in agentic/AI-native workflows than Torq's platform.
Automation (Falcon Fusion) is bundled into its endpoint/XDR platform rather than sold as a standalone hyperautomation layer, competing for the same SOC budget but requiring CrowdStrike telemetry as the primary data source.
Pushes autonomous SOC capability from the endpoint-detection side inward via its Purple AI/Singularity platform, the reverse of Torq's automation-out approach; SentinelOne was also an investor in Torq's 2021 Series B.
Torq is a security automation platform based in Portland, Oregon, that helps enterprise security operations centers triage, investigate, and respond to threats.
