Torq vs Tines: which SOAR platform is better in 2026?
Quick Answer: Torq (founded 2020, NYC/Tel Aviv) is a hyper-automation SOAR with 350+ integrations and quote-based enterprise pricing, suited to cloud-native security operations. Tines (founded 2018, Dublin/Boston) is a no-code workflow platform with 500+ integrations, a free Community Edition, and self-host options, suited to teams that prefer HTTP-first integration and gradual ramp-up.
Torq vs Tines: Direct Comparison
Torq and Tines are the two leading no-code SOAR platforms competing for the modern security operations center. Both reject the heavyweight code-heavy SOAR stacks of the previous generation in favor of visual workflow building.
Founders and Lineage
Torq (2020) was founded by Ofer Smadari, Eldad Livni, and Leonid Belkind from cloud-security backgrounds. Tines (2018) was founded by Eoin Hinchy and Thomas Kinsella from in-house security operations at DocuSign.
Integrations
Torq ships 350+ integrations as of 2026 with strong cloud-native event sources. Tines ships 500+ integrations and emphasizes generic HTTP and webhook actions as primitives.
Pricing
Torq is quote-based ($40K-$200K+/year typical) with a Hyperautomation Starter free tier for evaluation. Tines publishes a free Community Edition (3 stories, no expiration) and quotes paid plans in the $30K-$150K+/year range for typical security teams.
Deployment
Torq is SaaS-only with on-prem connectors via Torq Runners. Tines is SaaS by default with a Self-Hosted option (Tines Runner) for data sovereignty and air-gap deployments.
When Each Wins
Torq wins for cloud-native security operations, hyper-automation use cases spanning security/IT/engineering, and enterprise sales engagements. Tines wins for smaller teams that benefit from the Community Edition during ramp-up, organizations needing self-hosted runtime, and security engineers comfortable with HTTP-first integration.
Related Questions
Related Tools
Tines
No-code security automation and SOAR platform
Workflow AutomationTorq
No-code SOAR and security hyperautomation platform for SOC, MDR, and security engineering teams.
Workflow AutomationActivepieces
No-code workflow automation with self-hosting and AI-powered features
Workflow AutomationAutomatisch
Open-source Zapier alternative
Workflow AutomationRelated Rankings
Best Automation Platforms for AI Orchestration 2026
This ranking answers one question: how many real business applications can an AI agent act on out of the box? It evaluates nine platforms as of August 2026 on the reach they give an agent, not on the workflow logic they can express. That boundary is deliberate, because two neighbouring pages on this site answer different questions. Best Process Orchestration Platforms 2026 scores multi-step process control, error handling and state management. Best AI Agent Platforms 2026 scores building and hosting the agent itself. This page scores the layer between them: the connective tissue that lets an agent already built elsewhere reach the applications a business actually runs on. A platform that leads one of those pages can place low here, and two of them do. Scores derive from application and action catalogue counts, the exposure model each platform uses to publish those catalogues to an agent, setup effort, failure handling and cost per agent action. Every figure was retrieved from a vendor-owned surface on 11 August 2026 unless an earlier date is stated against it.
Best Durable Workflow Engines for Production in 2026
A ranked list of the best durable workflow engines for production deployments in 2026. Durable workflow engines persist execution state to a database so that long-running workflows survive process restarts, deployments, and infrastructure failures. The ranking covers Temporal, Prefect, Apache Airflow, Camunda, Windmill, and n8n. Tools were evaluated on production reliability, developer experience, scalability, open-source health, and documentation quality. The shortlist intentionally mixes code-first engines (Temporal, Prefect, Airflow) with hybrid visual platforms (Camunda, Windmill, n8n) to reflect how production teams actually choose workflow engines in 2026.
Dive Deeper
Client Portals vs Workflow Orchestration Platforms: What Changes When External Parties Act Inside a Process
What changes when a client or supplier has to act inside your process, not just watch it? This guide compares four client portals with four orchestration platforms on how outsiders get in, whether you pay for them and what the audit log records, from vendor sources read 14 and 15 September 2026.
Moxo vs Zapier in 2026: Human Approval Steps, External Participants and Pricing
Moxo and Zapier both put a person in front of an automated decision, from opposite ends: Moxo builds the process out of human steps and attaches AI, while Zapier pauses an automation for a reviewer through its Human in the Loop app. This guide compares approvers, rejection, AI approval, audit logs, governance and pricing, verified 14 and 15 September 2026.
Keystroke vs n8n in 2026: Agent-Built TypeScript vs the Visual Canvas
Keystroke, launched in July 2026 by Y Combinator W24 company Sprint Labs, is a code-first automation platform where AI coding agents write workflows as TypeScript in the user's repository. n8n, founded in 2019, is the most widely deployed source-available visual workflow platform, with 200,000+ users and a $2.5 billion valuation. This comparison covers the agent-authored versus canvas building models, durable execution, licensing (Elastic License 2.0 vs the Sustainable Use License), verified July 2026 pricing including Keystroke's usage metering, and the maturity gap between a days-old platform and an established ecosystem.