SOAR Platform Buyer's Guide: Comparing Tines, Splunk SOAR, and Palo Alto XSOAR
Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) platforms connect security tools, automate repetitive analyst tasks, and orchestrate incident response workflows. The promise is significant: automatically enrich alerts with threat intelligence, isolate compromised endpoints without analyst intervention, and route incidents through approval workflows at machine speed. The reality is that SOAR implementations require substantial workflow design investment, and platforms that appear similar in feature comparison differ dramatically in the skills required to build and maintain automations. Choosing the right platform depends as much on your team's technical capabilities as on the feature set.
What SOAR Actually Automates
The highest-value SOAR use cases are high-volume, well-defined processes that analysts currently perform manually:
Alert triage and enrichment
Automatically enrich every alert with: VirusTotal hash lookups, IP reputation checks (AbuseIPDB, Shodan), domain age and WHOIS data, threat intelligence correlation, and user/asset context from HR and CMDB systems. This eliminates the 5 to 15 minutes of manual enrichment per alert that dominates analyst time.
Phishing investigation and response
When a user reports a phishing email: extract URLs and attachments automatically, submit to sandbox, pull all recipients of the same email, check if any recipients clicked, block the URL at the email gateway, and generate a case with all findings. This workflow takes analysts 30 to 60 minutes manually and 2 to 5 minutes automated.
User account response
When an identity compromise alert fires: disable the account in the IdP, revoke active sessions, notify the user's manager, trigger an EDR scan of the user's device, and create a case with all context. Automatic account suspension reduces dwell time from hours to seconds.
Vulnerability management workflow
When a critical CVE is published: automatically query your asset inventory for affected assets, create tickets in Jira for each affected system owner, track remediation progress, and escalate overdue tickets. Replaces manual spreadsheet-based tracking.
Threat hunting automation
Run scheduled hunting queries in the SIEM based on new threat intelligence, automatically investigate any matches, and create cases only for confirmed findings. This scales threat hunting without scaling analyst headcount proportionally.
Platform Comparison
SOAR platforms differ significantly in their development model, required expertise, and organizational fit:
Tines
No-code/low-code platform built on a story-based automation model. Each workflow is a visual story connecting actions. Minimal Python or code required: integrations are HTTP-based using built-in functions. Rapid automation development for analysts who are not developers. Strong library of pre-built templates. Pricing is transparent and consumption-based. Cons: less powerful for complex, code-heavy automations than code-first platforms. Best for: SOC teams who want analysts (not developers) building automations, or organizations starting their SOAR journey.
Splunk SOAR (formerly Phantom)
Established platform with the largest library of pre-built apps and playbooks (500+ integrations). Python-based playbook development enables sophisticated automations. Strong for Splunk-centric environments where SOAR and SIEM are tightly integrated. Cons: requires Python development skills for advanced playbooks, complex administration, premium pricing. Best for: mature SOC teams with development capability and existing Splunk SIEM investment.
Palo Alto XSOAR (formerly Demisto)
Feature-rich platform with strong case management, threat intelligence integration, and war room collaboration. Deep integration with Palo Alto security products. Content Hub provides a large library of community and official packs. Cons: complex to administer, steep learning curve, requires significant implementation investment. Best for: large enterprise SOCs with dedicated SOAR engineering resources and Palo Alto ecosystem investment.
Microsoft Sentinel Automation (Logic Apps + Playbooks)
Azure Logic Apps-based automation integrated with Microsoft Sentinel. No separate SOAR license for basic automation; advanced orchestration requires Logic Apps consumption pricing. Native integration with all Microsoft security products. Cons: logic app model is less intuitive than dedicated SOAR platforms for complex workflows, limited pre-built playbooks compared to dedicated platforms. Best for: Microsoft-centric organizations wanting automation without a separate SOAR product.
Torq
Hyperautomation platform with a visual no-code builder and strong enterprise integration library. Faster time to first automation than code-heavy platforms. Growing adoption as an alternative to Splunk SOAR for teams without Python expertise. Best for: organizations wanting Splunk SOAR-level integration breadth with a lower-code development model.
Briefings like this, every morning before 9am.
Threat intel, active CVEs, and campaign alerts, distilled for practitioners. 50,000+ subscribers. No noise.
The Build vs. Buy Playbook Question
Every SOAR platform offers pre-built playbooks for common use cases. The decision to use pre-built vs. build custom is a common implementation debate. Pre-built playbooks: faster time to value, maintained by the vendor or community, but often too generic for your specific tool stack and process. Custom-built playbooks: fit your exact environment and processes, but require significant development time and ongoing maintenance. Best practice: use pre-built playbooks as starting points and customize them to your environment rather than using them as-is or building from scratch. The initial customization investment is repaid in maintenance reduction compared to fully custom playbooks.
Implementation: The Workflow Design Problem
SOAR implementations fail most often because teams focus on the platform selection and underestimate the workflow design work. Before selecting a SOAR platform, document your top five highest-volume manual analyst processes in detail: what triggers the process, what information must be gathered, what decisions are made, what actions are taken, and what the output looks like. This process documentation is the blueprint for your first automations. Organizations that document three to five detailed workflow blueprints before SOAR procurement make dramatically better platform choices and go live significantly faster than those who select a platform and then design workflows.
Measuring SOAR Success
SOAR value is measured through operational outcomes rather than automation metrics alone:
Mean time to respond (MTTR)
Compare MTTR for alert types before and after SOAR automation. A phishing investigation that took 45 minutes manually taking 3 minutes automated represents measurable value.
Analyst capacity reclaimed
Calculate hours saved per analyst per week across all automated workflows. This is the primary business case metric for SOAR investment.
Automation rate
Percentage of alerts fully handled by automation without analyst intervention. A rate above 60 percent for high-volume, low-complexity alert types indicates mature SOAR adoption.
Playbook reliability
Percentage of automated playbook executions that complete without error or manual intervention. Low reliability indicates integration issues or poorly designed playbooks that generate more work than they save.
The bottom line
SOAR delivers real value when it automates real analyst workflows, not theoretical ones. Start by documenting your three highest-volume manual processes in detail before selecting a platform. Match platform complexity to your team's technical capabilities: Tines for teams without dedicated automation engineers, Splunk SOAR or XSOAR for teams with Python development resources. Expect six to twelve months before SOAR is delivering measurable efficiency gains.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between SOAR and SIEM?
A SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) aggregates logs, detects threats through correlation rules, and generates alerts. A SOAR responds to those alerts: it automates investigation steps, orchestrates actions across security tools, and manages the incident response workflow. SIEM is the detection engine; SOAR is the response engine. They work together: SIEM alerts trigger SOAR playbooks, which enrich and respond to the alert and feed results back to the SIEM case. Most organizations need both; some modern platforms (Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk) include both in a single product.
How many integrations does a SOAR platform need?
Focus on depth of integration for the tools you actually use rather than breadth of the pre-built integration library. A SOAR platform with 600 integrations that has a shallow integration with your specific EDR version is less useful than one with 200 integrations that has a deep, well-maintained integration with your actual stack. During evaluation, test the specific integrations you will use on day one: your SIEM, EDR, email gateway, IdP, threat intelligence platform, and ticketing system.
How long does it take to implement SOAR?
Time to first automation: 2 to 4 weeks for a simple enrichment playbook using pre-built integrations. Time to full operational deployment with 10 to 15 automations covering your highest-volume use cases: 3 to 6 months. Time to mature SOAR program where automation handles 60 percent+ of alerts: 12 to 18 months. The primary variable is not the platform; it is the team's available time for workflow design and development alongside their regular SOC responsibilities.
Do we need dedicated SOAR engineers?
Depends on the platform and automation ambitions. Tines and Torq are designed for security analysts to build automations without engineering support. Splunk SOAR and Palo Alto XSOAR benefit significantly from at least one dedicated automation engineer who understands Python and API integration patterns. At scale (100+ playbooks, complex integrations), all platforms benefit from dedicated SOAR engineering resources. Organizations without dedicated resources typically achieve better outcomes with no-code/low-code platforms even if those platforms have fewer theoretical capabilities.
Can SOAR take automated containment actions without human approval?
Yes, and this is one of SOAR's highest-value capabilities: automatic account suspension upon confirmed credential compromise, automatic endpoint isolation upon high-confidence malware detection, automatic URL blocking upon phishing confirmation. However, automated actions should be gated by confidence thresholds. High-confidence, reversible actions (block an IP, suspend an account) are good candidates for full automation. Irreversible or high-impact actions (delete data, terminate instances) should require human approval in a SOAR approval workflow. Start with reversible automated actions and expand based on validated accuracy rates.
What is hyperautomation and how does it relate to SOAR?
Hyperautomation (Gartner's term) refers to the use of multiple automation technologies together: SOAR, RPA (Robotic Process Automation), AI/ML models, and process mining to automate complex business processes end to end. In security operations, hyperautomation extends SOAR beyond security-specific tools to business processes: automatically notifying legal and HR during an insider threat investigation, triggering vendor contract review during a supply chain incident, or generating and routing regulatory notifications. Platforms like Tines and Torq are marketed as hyperautomation platforms because they support both security and general business process automation.
Sources & references
- Gartner Market Guide for Security Orchestration, Automation and Response 2025
- Forrester Wave SOAR 2025
- SANS Automation and Orchestration Survey 2025
- Tines Platform Documentation
- Splunk SOAR Playbook Library
Free resources
Critical CVE Reference Card 2025–2026
25 actively exploited vulnerabilities with CVSS scores, exploit status, and patch availability. Print it, pin it, share it with your SOC team.
Ransomware Incident Response Playbook
Step-by-step 24-hour IR checklist covering detection, containment, eradication, and recovery. Built for SOC teams, IR leads, and CISOs.
Get threat intel before your inbox does.
50,000+ security professionals read Decryption Digest for early warnings on zero-days, ransomware, and nation-state campaigns. Free, weekly, no spam.
Unsubscribe anytime. We never sell your data.
Founder & Cybersecurity Evangelist, Decryption Digest
Cybersecurity professional with expertise in threat intelligence, vulnerability research, and enterprise security. Covers zero-days, ransomware, and nation-state operations for 50,000+ security professionals weekly.
The Mythos Brief is free.
AI that finds 27-year-old zero-days. What it means for your security program.