Tines vs Torq: No-Code SOAR Comparison for Security Teams 2026
Security orchestration was supposed to solve the alert fatigue problem. In practice, for many teams, it created a second problem: the SOAR maintenance burden. Platforms like Palo Alto XSOAR and Splunk SOAR were designed in an era when security automation was an engineering project. Content packs needed to be installed and maintained as vendor APIs changed. Playbooks were written in Python. When an API changed upstream, playbooks broke. When the SOAR engineer left, institutional knowledge walked out with them.
The result: analyst surveys consistently show that a large share of organizations that deployed legacy SOAR describe their deployments as underutilized. A handful of playbooks are executing, but the backlog of automations that were supposed to be built never got built because the engineering capacity to build and maintain them was never sustained.
No-code SOAR emerged from this frustration. The premise is that any workflow that can be diagrammed on a whiteboard should be buildable by the analyst who understands the workflow, not by an engineer who has to translate it. Tines and Torq are the two platforms that have most successfully executed on this premise, each from a different architectural angle.
Tines: The Story-Based Workflow Model
Tines was founded in Dublin in 2018 and has grown into one of the most widely referenced SOAR alternatives among practitioners who have lived through a failed XSOAR deployment. The platform's core concept is the 'story': a visual canvas where analysts wire together discrete action blocks.
The key insight in Tines's design is that every integration is just an HTTP request. Rather than maintaining a library of native integrations that break when vendor APIs change, Tines treats any API endpoint as a first-class integration target through a generic HTTP request action. Credentials are stored in the platform's credential manager and referenced by actions, so updating an API key in one place propagates across all stories that use it.
Action types in Tines include HTTP requests, send-email and send-to-Slack actions, conditional logic, loops, delays, and a growing set of AI actions that can invoke LLMs as workflow steps. Tines also offers a page builder that lets teams create lightweight web forms or dashboards for analyst interaction within a workflow, useful for approval gates or human-in-the-loop escalation steps.
Tines customers skew toward mid-market security teams that have some API literacy but lack dedicated SOAR engineers. The platform has also gained strong traction in larger enterprises as a replacement for XSOAR deployments that failed to scale.
Torq: Hyperautomation and AI-Native Case Management
Torq was founded in 2021 and has positioned itself around end-to-end automation that spans alert ingestion, enrichment, case management, and response actions within a single platform rather than requiring a separate SOAR, SIEM, and case management tool.
The Torq platform's visual workflow builder shares the no-code philosophy with Tines but differs in the starting point it offers. Torq maintains a library of pre-built workflow templates for common security use cases: phishing triage, vulnerability alert enrichment, cloud misconfiguration response, IAM provisioning, and incident communication. Teams can deploy and customize these templates rather than building from a blank canvas, which accelerates time-to-value for teams new to automation.
Torq's most differentiated capability is Torq Socrates, its AI-powered SOC assistant. Socrates is embedded in Torq's case management layer and functions as an AI analyst that summarizes active cases, suggests investigation steps, correlates related alerts, generates workflow step suggestions from natural language descriptions, and drafts analyst notes.
Torq has invested more explicitly in MSSP and multi-tenant support than Tines, with workspace-level isolation and centralized workflow library management designed for providers running automations across many customer environments.
Briefings like this, every morning before 9am.
Threat intel, active CVEs, and campaign alerts, distilled for practitioners. 50,000+ subscribers. No noise.
Also compare in security operations
Head-to-Head Comparison
Both platforms use visual canvas-based workflow builders. Tines's canvas is more minimal: analysts work with a small set of action types and compose them freely. The learning curve is shallow for analysts comfortable with APIs and JSON but can feel undirected for those who want more scaffolding. Torq's builder offers more visual polish, inline template suggestions, and AI-assisted step generation, which reduces the blank-canvas problem for new automation builders.
Tines's approach is that any HTTP API is a first-class integration, so connector breadth is unlimited in principle. The tradeoff is that analysts must understand the target API to build the integration rather than dropping in a pre-configured connector. Torq offers a growing library of pre-built connectors with pre-configured authentication and action schemas. For common tools (SIEM platforms, ticketing systems, threat intelligence feeds), Torq's pre-built connectors reduce setup time.
Torq Socrates is the more developed AI layer, embedded in case management and visible to analysts during active triage. Tines's AI action type offers more flexibility for automation builders who want to invoke LLMs at specific workflow steps and control the prompt and response handling precisely. Teams that want AI in the analyst's daily working view should evaluate Torq; teams that want AI as a composable automation step should evaluate Tines.
Torq has a more developed native case management layer. Tines's incident management capabilities are lighter and more commonly used in combination with an external case management tool such as PagerDuty, Jira, or ServiceNow.
Workflow builder
Tines: story canvas, HTTP-first, maximum flexibility. Torq: visual canvas with template library and AI-assisted step generation. XSOAR: Python-based playbooks with content pack dependency.
Integration approach
Tines: any HTTP API is a first-class integration, no pre-built connectors required. Torq: growing pre-built connector library plus HTTP fallback. XSOAR: content packs and Python integrations that require engineering maintenance.
AI capabilities
Tines: AI action step composable within workflow stories. Torq: Torq Socrates embedded in case management, visible during active triage. XSOAR: Cortex AI, requires XSIAM.
MSSP multi-tenant support
Tines: Teams model, suitable for MSSP use cases with vendor confirmation. Torq: workspace isolation and centralized library management, purpose-built for MSSP deployments.
Comparison Table
| Criterion | Tines | Torq | Palo Alto XSOAR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workflow builder model | Story canvas, HTTP-first | Visual canvas, template library | Playbook with Python tasks |
| Integration approach | Any HTTP API | Pre-built connectors plus HTTP | Content packs, Python integrations |
| AI capabilities | AI action step in workflows | Torq Socrates in case management | Cortex AI (XSIAM required) |
| Case management | Lightweight, external tool recommended | Native with AI assistance | Native incident model |
| MSSP multi-tenant support | Teams model | Workspace isolation, purpose-built | Available, complex to configure |
| Pricing model | Per workflow run or worker | Per workflow execution | Per playbook run plus analyst seat |
| Community/free tier | Yes (functional) | Limited trial | No |
| Deployment model | Cloud-only | Cloud-only | Cloud and on-premises |
| Engineering dependency | Low | Low | High |
| Time to first automation | Hours (API-literate teams) | Hours (template-assisted) | Days to weeks |
Decision Framework
Choose Tines if your SOC has analysts comfortable with REST APIs and JSON; you want maximum flexibility to integrate any tool without waiting for a pre-built connector; you prefer building automations from first principles rather than customizing templates; you have existing case management infrastructure you want to keep; or you want a free community tier for initial evaluation.
Choose Torq if your SOC team is newer to automation and wants template-based starting points; you want AI embedded in the analyst's daily case triage view rather than only in automation pipelines; you are an MSSP or manage security for multiple tenant environments; or you want native case management and SOAR in a single platform to reduce tool sprawl.
Reconsider XSOAR only if you are deeply committed to the Palo Alto Cortex ecosystem (particularly XSIAM) and have the engineering resources to maintain the content pack dependencies that come with it.
The bottom line
Teams migrating from XSOAR or Splunk SOAR to Tines or Torq consistently report two categories of migration effort. The first is playbook translation: mapping existing Python-based playbook logic into the no-code workflow model. This is not a one-to-one migration and requires rethinking workflows rather than converting them directly. Teams that approach migration as a redesign opportunity rather than a lift-and-shift typically complete it faster and end up with cleaner automation coverage. The second category is integration re-wiring: replacing existing XSOAR integration instances with HTTP-based integrations in Tines or connector configurations in Torq. Both Tines and Torq offer migration support programs and have published guides for XSOAR migrations specifically. Request a proof-of-concept engagement rather than attempting a full migration based on documentation alone.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between Tines and traditional SOAR platforms?
Traditional SOAR platforms such as Palo Alto XSOAR and Splunk SOAR were built on a model that requires security engineers or developers to write Python integrations, maintain custom content packs, and manage complex playbook logic through code-heavy interfaces. Tines takes a fundamentally different approach by modeling workflows as 'stories' composed of discrete actions (HTTP requests, credential lookups, conditional logic, send-message steps) that any analyst can wire together without writing code. The absence of a proprietary scripting layer means Tines integrates with any tool that has an API endpoint, using standard HTTP requests with credential management built in. This shifts SOAR ownership from a dedicated SOAR engineer to the broader analyst team.
Does Tines or Torq require a dedicated SOAR engineer to operate?
Neither Tines nor Torq requires a dedicated SOAR engineer in the way that Palo Alto XSOAR or Splunk SOAR typically do. Tines is designed so that an analyst comfortable with REST APIs and basic logic can build functional automations independently. Torq has a similar philosophy but also offers a library of pre-built workflow templates and an AI workflow assistant (part of its Socrates offering) that can help generate workflow steps from natural language descriptions. In practice, teams with no prior automation experience tend to reach productive automation faster on Torq due to its guided template library, while teams with API-literate analysts who want maximum flexibility often prefer Tines.
How does Torq Socrates AI compare to Tines AI features?
Torq Socrates is Torq's AI-powered SOC assistant, embedded directly into the platform's case management layer. Socrates can summarize active cases, suggest investigation steps, generate workflow steps from natural language prompts, correlate related alerts, and draft analyst notes. Tines has also added AI capabilities, including an AI action type that lets workflows call LLMs as steps within a story, enabling dynamic triage, natural language parsing of alert data, and generative drafting of communication outputs. The key distinction is architectural: Torq Socrates is a layer built on top of case management with AI surfaced in the analyst's primary working view, while Tines AI is a composable action within workflows that automation builders invoke intentionally.
Can Tines or Torq replace Palo Alto XSOAR completely?
For most mid-market and upper mid-market SOC teams, yes. Tines and Torq can replicate the alert triage, enrichment, notification, ticketing integration, and response action capabilities that XSOAR delivers, without the content pack dependency and engineering overhead. Where XSOAR retains an advantage is in the breadth of pre-built native integrations through its content marketplace and its native integration with the broader Palo Alto Cortex ecosystem. Organizations running fully Palo Alto-native security stacks will find less reason to switch; organizations with heterogeneous tool stacks will typically find Tines or Torq faster to deploy, easier to maintain, and less expensive.
How do Tines and Torq handle MSSP multi-tenant deployments?
Torq has invested more explicitly in MSSP and multi-tenant support, offering workspace-level isolation between customer environments, centralized management of shared workflow libraries that can be pushed to individual tenants, and role-based access controls scoped to individual customer workspaces. Tines supports multi-tenancy through its Teams model and can accommodate MSSP use cases, but MSSPs evaluating Tines at scale should confirm current multi-tenant workflow management capabilities directly with the vendor, as the platform's design philosophy prioritizes individual team flexibility over centralized multi-customer management.
What is the typical time-to-first-automation for each platform?
Teams with prior API integration experience can build a functional alert enrichment and ticketing workflow in Tines within a few hours of gaining access. Torq's template library accelerates the initial setup for teams newer to automation, offering dozens of pre-built workflow templates for common use cases (phishing triage, vulnerability alert enrichment, IAM provisioning, cloud alert response) that can be deployed and customized in an afternoon. Both contrast favorably with XSOAR, where content pack configuration and playbook testing cycles routinely extend initial deployment to weeks.
How does pricing compare between Tines, Torq, and Palo Alto XSOAR?
Tines prices on a per-workflow-run or per-worker model depending on the tier, with a free community tier that is genuinely functional for small teams. Torq prices primarily on a per-workflow-execution model and does not publish list pricing publicly. Palo Alto XSOAR is licensed per active playbook run and per analyst seat, typically at a significantly higher price point than either no-code alternative when normalized to equivalent automation volume, and carries additional implementation and content maintenance costs not reflected in license pricing alone. Organizations migrating from XSOAR consistently report meaningful total cost reduction when switching to Tines or Torq.
Sources & references
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.