Torq AI SOC Platform

My main use case for Torq  is to handle the correct cases using it as a SOAR  platform. We have created a work plan and we've used Torq  as a SOAR  platform to handle the incidents from start to closure.

In my opinion, the best features Torq offers are ease of navigation and good AI usage as Socrates. There are different stages of the incident when it comes into the queue, and we could easily navigate to the sections that we would want to update and work on. That is how it brings a lot of customization to the incidents navigation and all other stages of the incident. The good usage of AI is regarding Socrates, the AI that summarizes and can respond to the threats or the incidents on its own when it's assigned to the incident. Those are two of the strongest points of Torq.

Torq is good in the reporting structure and showing metrics to the leadership. I think Torq plays a good role in that sense.

Torq can probably use more ML and look at what can be closed and what cannot be closed in terms of data classification. In terms of auto closure of incidents, it can do better when it uses ML. I choose that number because it's a great SOAR tool. It's not one of those existing SOAR platforms or just a pure SOAR. It has good incident handling, good UI, and a good user-friendly environment, but it can also improve its automation workbooks, work plans, and usage of ML to better cater to the market or consumers.

I have used Torq for five months.

I did not see it buffer, take a lot of time to load, or be unresponsive. I haven't seen those issues in Torq. I think that's a good experience.

If scalability is rated out of ten, I would rate it seven out of ten.

It was Demisto  XSOAR, and we shifted because we needed a more user-friendly SOAR platform.

I would just make sure to replace the old or the previous solution with Torq point by point. If that is good, I think everything else will be taken care of.

We were just consumers.

I can share the time saved from my work alone and cannot disclose or specify any other employees. I saved nearly roughly about ten hours of my time while I was working in Torq because it's much better than the previous tool.

I have heard Hyper Automate  is pretty user-friendly and has less coding compared to other leaders in the market or other players in the market. Its drag and drop tasks or work plan building is what I heard.

We have seen fewer failures of automations from the time Torq came into the picture. We've had a more streamlined process of handling incidents, and at the same time, we've learned to embed the AI into our incident types, and that is how it has helped us in the automation. I think Torq can really integrate other tools within the case management platform, and it can make the work a little more efficient. I would rate this review eight out of ten.

My main use case for Torq  is automation, specifically automating processes that the business considers redundant, mundane, and busy work items, along with other significant automation opportunities like phishing cases, typosquatting, leaked credentials, and double-checking, so there are numerous different use cases.

One specific example of an automation I have set up with Torq  is phishing analysis. Torq workflow that handles phishing cases essentially closes out 60%, meaning only 40% of all phishing cases that come to our team need to be reviewed because the automation can close out the other 60%. If my team had to look at every single email, it would consume a lot of time, so it saves a lot of time.

Torq's best features include the AI components within the platform, specifically the ability to have an AI helping assistant while you are working in the platform itself, which is extremely convenient. You can ask it any type of question and it gives me an answer that I can work with or is the actual answer because it has Torq's back-end knowledge to answer Torq-specific questions. Another great feature is the Python script AI assistant, which has been really helpful because you can prompt it and it does it for you, as well as other micro-steps like Transform operators and the ability to run easy JQ commands to pull or separate specific data.

Torq's integrations are extremely easy, so any product you have in your tech stack is easily integratable; it takes a few steps, plug it in, and you are ready to go.

Torq has positively impacted our organization by saving a ton of time, especially on the GRC  side of the business where we automate many emailing processes, such as sending out phishing tests to our employees. If they fail by clicking on the link, we notify all of them, so we have definitely seen a huge efficiency boost. We are targeting $600,000 saved this year in 2026, which is a substantial amount of money.

I wish Torq's AI assistant for building templated workflows from scratch worked better; when you start with a blank slate, asking AI to help you build or template the workflow out does not go well. Almost every single time I have tried to use it, I have had to delete it and start from scratch, so that would be the only piece of Torq I would mention. Additionally, I think it would be nice to have a direct connection between case management and automation instead of having to build out workflows to manage cases.

I have been using Torq since we moved into production ready as of last November, so it has been about six or seven months.

I have not run into any issues with customer support from Torq, which has been astronomically amazing. I have a great relationship with my CSM and my technical enablement engineer, so it has been really easy working in Torq and building, which is why it cannot be anything lower than that.

We came from XSOAR, which I consider a very archaic platform, and Torq has exceeded expectations by delivering workflows in a timely and lower effort manner than XSOAR. XSOAR would have been a two; Torq is definitely a nine and a half, almost a ten. It meets all my needs, and I have not run into any issues.

Torq challenges we faced in our SOC that led to considering changes before implementing Torq were primarily due to the automation industry changing. Palo Alto's XSOAR simply did not meet our needs, and with our contract coming up, we performed an industry review and compared Torq with Tines  and others. Ultimately, Torq proved to be superior with a much easier to interact with playbook builder compared to Tines , which felt complicated and convoluted.

We previously used Palo Alto XSOAR because it was slow, and our contract was up.

Torq calculation for the $600,000 in savings is very specific and based on the team's time. For example, we calculate that handling phishing cases takes about five minutes per case, but if Torq auto-closes it, we save more money because our analysts do not have to take time out of their day to review it. We do a per-minute price cost based on yearly salaries of whichever department we save time for, multiplying that by how long it would take to handle the specific use case, and then total it into an ROI table that we are holding in the workspace variables.

We have seen a return on investment, targeting a $600,000 ROI for the year. So far, from the start of our usage, we have saved around $200,000 to date. We aim not to eliminate jobs but to reduce mundane tasks through automation.

My experience with Torq's pricing, setup cost, and licensing was good, but I did not deal with that too much; that was handled by my boss, and Torq's pricing came in very comparable to the other products we were looking at.

I have not looked into Torq's AI capabilities regarding governance and security too much, so I do not have much to say on that.

Regarding Torq's AI capabilities, I trust more or less the accuracy and reliability of output. I have not done a whole lot with AI beyond using the AI chat agent and the AI script builders, but we are building out a HyperAgent for active threat hunting in our environment. This process involves pulling feeds using a Python script, which extracts artifacts from individual pages or feeds and injects them into the HyperAgent, allowing the HyperAgent to scan and identify if we are impacted by the feed, and then build a report or storyboard for us. I have not seen anything that indicates inaccuracy, so I trust the produced outputs so far.

Torq is deployed in our organization as a private cloud; we are not on-prem, and we utilize Torq's back-end or cloud instances.

Torq has changed the day-to-day experience for my security analysts, both in terms of workload and morale, by making the process easier.

Torq biggest feedback from my teammates is that going through each case is much easier because the case management layout in Torq is structured with a multi-pane window. You have all cases in the background, and when you pull up a case, it displays on the side for quick review and closure, so you are not opening up numerous tabs for each individual case. This makes life a lot easier, and my analysts really appreciate the UI aspects of Torq.

Torq value is realized instantaneously; the moment I started building and shipping out workflows from XSOAR, it became easier post go-live since I already knew how to build. Thus, the transition from XSOAR to Torq provided instant gratification.

We do not use Torq's Agentic AI at this moment in time.

There have not been any changes in the stress levels and focus of our SecOps staff due to using Torq's AI since our analysts engage the AI component of Torq very little. Torq's AI main usage is found on the back end by developers, including myself.

I would rate this review as a nine overall.

Initially, we were using Slack for small automations, such as creating pipelines or shutting down servers. For example, I could shut down one of our Angular services on one of our servers through a slash command in Slack. To automate this process, we migrated everything from Slack to Torq . Currently, we are in the migration phase, with most of it completed, though some portions are still pending.

We use Torq  for identity management. For identity purposes, we create user accounts and have a workflow that creates a user account, adds that user into Slack, and grants Git  access. This workflow handles user additions, deletions, and modifications related to identity, and it is working very well.

We are not using Torq extensively for security purposes, as we have limited use cases for security. However, we are using it for day-to-day activities and general automations, which are also working well.

Feature-wise, I appreciate the Torq UI because of its drag-and-drop functionality. Everything is drag-and-drop, and I can accomplish whatever I want to do directly without writing any code. In Slack, there are many things that require writing code and familiarity with automation tools, but Torq is no-code. This is very good compared to all other solutions I have seen.

The workload has been reduced quite a bit. Initially, onboarding a new user would take four or five hours for one person to create a user account everywhere, remember everything, and follow Confluence  documentation. After implementing Torq, we only need to provide the name, user ID, and email, submit it, and then it creates everything. Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes. This represents a very good time saving.

I do not dislike anything about Torq because it has satisfied all of our use cases and requirements. We contacted support as well, and support is very good. I believe everything is good now. However, one thing I can mention is that if Torq provided more templates on the development side, that would be beneficial.

As of now, Torq satisfies our use cases. A template would be helpful for someone who does not know anything about Torq and is starting to use it for the first time. After conducting a POC on Torq, I can implement solutions without needing templates as much, but templates would serve as a reference for new users. For example, templates would show what is possible with Torq. We faced this issue when we were new to Torq. We were considering use cases but wondering whether they were possible with Torq. At that time, we asked support if it was possible, and they explained how to implement it. If there were default templates available, we could see the templates and understand what is possible and doable with Torq.

I have used Torq for about one and a half year.

I have not faced any issues until now. Torq is working very well without any problems and no downtime. Whenever I access the Torq URL, it is working. This is very good.

There is no downtime at all. We have been using Torq for one and a half years, but we have experienced no downtime.

Torq is very scalable. Whenever we require any new use cases, we simply need to create a new workflow. If we need to update something, we can update the workflow as well. Torq is fully scalable.

The support team is very quick. Within 24 hours, they will send an email or come on a call if something is critical. Support is provided within 24 hours.

We used Slack previously. I do not have experience with other tools. We used only Slack. However, Slack is used primarily for chatting and communication purposes in all organizations. While Slack is not similar to Torq, we were able to accomplish our automation through it somehow.

The initial deployment was very easy. I did not face any issues. We purchased a SaaS product that is cloud-based, so there were no issues at all. The process was very straightforward with simple steps.

At least one or two people are needed. One to two people are enough for this. It is a one-time setup where we create workflows based on our use cases. However, if we want to add more workflows, we need some support. For that purpose, one or two people who know Torq are more than enough.

After we created a workflow and tested it, we started using it, and the return was immediate. After creating the workflow, we were immediately getting results.

The pricing is cheap. Although I did not purchase the product myself, my manager and others were discussing it. This is a very cheap product, and it is very helpful.

I have been working for five years with experience in the IT field. Torq is very good. It manages everything. I would rate this product 10 out of 10.

As MSSPs, we serve our customers using Torq , and I work as a consultant in an MSSP  that uses Torq  as our main SOAR  platform for our SOC.

Our usual use cases for Torq involve a variable amount of scenarios. We use it for fast automation building, as the automation building capability in Torq is low-code and quick with less scripting involved. This enables faster Tier 1 SOC automation, so all Level 1 analyst work is eliminated with Torq.

Our other use case centers on its cloud-native architecture. Torq makes use of API-first integrations and event-driven workflows with AI-assisted triage and response capabilities. It can be integrated with different multi-cloud vendors as well as other SaaS stacks, other MDR, and MSSP  operations. Integration with cloud technologies is very straightforward.

Regarding Torq's automation of triage, investigation, and remediation actions across multiple attack surfaces, the data ingestion pipeline and workflow are excellent. Torq ingests alerts from a SIEM , EDR, CSPM, IAM , email, ASM, and other sources. It then performs normalization and enrichment. The third phase involves correlation across services, correlating data between different platforms when alerts arrive from endpoints, identity, cloud, network, or other sources. After correlation, the AI rule-based triage determines whether an alert is a false positive, a real attack, or its priority level. This is managed by the AI Agentic software within Torq. The automated response playbook then comes into play for remediation. If a playbook has been configured, it may disable a user, isolate a host, revoke a token, or patch a cloud issue based on what the AI detected. The final stage involves ticketing and validation. Torq audits everything, generates a ticket regarding whether the task has been completed, and includes a validation point that ensures all completed work has been confirmed or validated for completeness.

The valuable and important aspects I find about Torq include how it was deployed in our environment and integrated with every other technology within our SOC, which was a straightforward task with minimal hassle. The documentation from Torq was thorough, and we were able to integrate other technologies well.

Torq's UI interface is easy to understand and digest. It is visually appealing and information flows consistently, making it easy to grasp whether you are looking at it for the first time or have been working on it for a month or two. The interface is logical in terms of page navigation and how settings are organized by category, all sensibly categorized.

In terms of how Torq has changed the day-to-day experience for my security analysts regarding their workload and job satisfaction, the analysts feel more confident. They believe Torq has all the elements that increase their confidence in how technology should look and integrate with every other piece of technology within our SOC. Under one SOC tool in Torq, analysts get to know everything within the context of an alert or incident they are working on. Torq also provides analysts with a comprehensive viewpoint where they can see all alerts coming from various software, technologies, and alerting systems for a certain customer. This ability to view the whole picture within Torq is one of the major breakthroughs and best offerings of Torq.

Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR  is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true. Torq is a SOAR platform. Branding that suggests SOAR is dead might not be the best approach. Similarly, marketing Torq as an AI SOC replacing SOAR is part of the overall branding strategy, but Torq should position itself as a SOAR platform because that is what it is. If Torq brands itself as an AI SOC or something else, there might be different outcomes in the long run.

The AI value depends on maturity. Real value depends heavily on telemetry, integration depth, and workflow design, all of which rely on how mature customers are in their SOC department. There is a dependency in this relationship. Enterprise complexity still exists as well. Although Torq is easier than older SOAR tools, large deployments can still become operationally complex, integration-heavy, and governance-sensitive. Many organizations apply extensive governance for security, and Torq does not always comply with all the policies that certain enterprises require.

I have been working with Torq for almost four months.

Torq is quite stable and reliable with consistent performance. I have not encountered any bugs or errors.

Torq is quite scalable and can scale to accommodate whatever amount of customers you onboard or whatever volume of incidents or alerts are generated daily.

We do not often communicate with Torq's technical support. We had to contact them during initial installation, but we have not needed to since. My impression of their technical support during the initial setup was that they were helpful, responded within a reasonable timeframe, and provided exactly what we needed.

Before using Torq, we were using Google Simplify, a SOAR platform by Google, which we used for about four or five years. Before that, we were not using any SOAR solution.

I participated in the initial setup of Torq, which was not complex. Everything was straightforward with minimal hassle. All customization had to be done through APIs, which is always the best approach. There were not many issues during the initial deployment.

We are still in the process of realizing value with Torq. Since we transitioned from another SOAR just a few months ago, we have not conducted any system review or performance review. After a six-month or twelve-month period, we will likely conduct a performance review. For now, we are still assessing how much efficiency improvement we have achieved with Torq enablement. Generally speaking, the analysts are very pleased with it, and the integration of how Torq connects is working well.

Before choosing Torq, we evaluated other vendors including Tines , Splunk SOAR , Microsoft Sentinel  Automation, and Palo Alto Cortex XSOAR . We ultimately decided on Torq.

We dismissed other options in favor of Torq for a variety of reasons. Our solution architect team conducted extensive analysis to determine which platform would move forward, alongside company negotiations and the support we were receiving from Torq. The decision was not based on just one or two factors, but rather on an in-depth analysis.

Comparing Torq's unified platform approach to AI SOC automation and case management with my experience managing multiple point solutions across my security stack, I find that Torq is modern because many other platforms lack this quality. When I say modern, I mean it encompasses everything—the UI interface, integrations, the ability to use AI, and the ability to navigate through cases. Other platforms that are not as modern lack in one or two departments. With Torq, case handling and how a case moves from instantiation through analyst work to resolution or closure—all these stages are managed in a way that is somewhat similar to how other platforms handle them, but it is more modern and represents how technology should look in 2026. The UI interface is quite good, which makes a significant difference in how you view the technology. While it is not a very big leap in terms of case handling compared to other platforms, it still represents an improvement when compared with other multi-integration or multi-connecting platforms.

Regarding the pricing and licensing of Torq, I cannot comment extensively because pricing has been controlled by our product manager. The relativeness between what pricing we received from the previous SOAR and our current Torq pricing is something that should be asked from a product manager, as we as architects and engineers do not handle the sales aspect of the technology. The pricing appears to be user-based rather than database-based, meaning it is based on the number of analysts working on the platform, whether that is fifty, twenty, or thirty, which represents good value.

I would rate this review eight out of ten.