comparison

Torq vs Tines 2026: SOAR Platforms Compared

Torq (2020, NYC/Tel Aviv) is a hyper-automation SOAR with 350+ integrations and quote-based enterprise pricing. Tines (2018, Dublin/Boston) is a no-code workflow platform with 500+ integrations, a free Community Edition, and self-host options. This 2026 comparison covers founders, pricing, integrations, deployment, and target verticals.

Overview

Torq and Tines are the two leading no-code Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) platforms competing for the modern security operations center. Both were founded by experienced security operators and both reject the heavyweight, code-heavy SOAR stacks of the previous generation (Phantom, Demisto, XSOAR) in favor of visual workflow building. The differences are in lineage, pricing model, integration breadth, target customer profile, and deployment options.

Torq was founded in 2020 by Ofer Smadari, Eldad Livni, and Leonid Belkind (former Luminate Security/Symantec leadership) and is headquartered in New York with R&D in Tel Aviv. Tines was founded in 2018 by Eoin Hinchy and Thomas Kinsella (both ex-DocuSign security operations) and is headquartered in Dublin and Boston.

Founders and Lineage

Torq's founders came from the cloud security and zero-trust networking world. The product reflects this background: heavy emphasis on cloud-native event sources (AWS, GCP, Azure, Kubernetes, CSPM tooling) and a hyper-automation positioning that pushes beyond classic SOAR into broader security operations and IT workflows.

Tines' founders came from in-house security operations at large SaaS companies. The product reflects an operator-first sensibility: explicit modeling of stories (workflows), actions, and datasets; transparent execution logs; a strong free Community Edition that has driven bottom-up adoption in security teams since 2020.

Integration Breadth

Torq ships over 350 integrations as of 2026, including dedicated connectors for major SIEM, EDR, IDP, ticketing, and cloud platforms (Splunk, CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Okta, Microsoft Entra, ServiceNow, Jira, AWS, GCP, Azure). Custom HTTP actions and OAuth flows handle the long tail.

Tines ships over 500 integrations and emphasizes generic HTTP and webhook actions as primitives, with a curated list of named connectors. The Tines philosophy is that any REST API is one HTTP action away, which appeals to security engineers comfortable with API documentation.

Target Verticals

Torq is widely deployed in mid-to-large enterprise security teams (Fortune 500 SOCs, MDR providers, cloud-native organizations). Reported customers include Lemonade, Nuvei, Riskified, and Check Point.

Tines has strong adoption in scale-up and enterprise security teams (DocuSign, Coinbase, Snowflake, Mars, Elastic, McKesson) and in MDR/MSSP providers. The Community Edition has seeded adoption in smaller teams that later upgrade.

Pricing Model

Torq does not publish public pricing. Quotes are typically annual contracts in the $40,000-$200,000+ range based on number of workflows, action volume, and integration breadth. A free Hyperautomation Starter tier (limited workflows and actions) is available for evaluation.

Tines publishes a free Community Edition (3 stories, unlimited team members, no expiration) and quotes paid plans for production deployments. Public guidance places Tines paid pricing in the $30,000-$150,000+/year range for typical security teams. The Community Edition is one of the few free-forever production-grade offerings in the SOAR category.

Deployment

Torq is SaaS-only with multi-region (US, EU) options and supports on-prem connectors via Torq Runners (lightweight agents that execute actions inside the customer environment).

Tines is SaaS by default with EU and US regions and offers a Self-Hosted option (Tines Runner) for organizations that need to keep workflow execution inside their own infrastructure for data sovereignty or air-gap reasons. SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and HIPAA compliance are available on both products.

Workflow Authoring

Torq uses a flow-canvas model with explicit triggers, conditions, actions, and approval steps. Sub-workflows and shared modules support workflow composition. Hyper-automation framing emphasizes the breadth of triggers (CSPM findings, identity events, ticketing transitions) beyond classic security alerts.

Tines models workflows as stories made of actions (Webhook, HTTP Request, Event Transform, Trigger, Send Email, AI Action, etc.) connected as a directed graph. The Tines vocabulary (stories, actions, transforms) is opinionated and has become a de-facto standard among Tines-trained operators.

When to Choose Torq

  • Cloud-native security operations with heavy AWS/GCP/Azure event sources
  • Hyper-automation use cases that span security, IT, and engineering workflows
  • Organizations that already evaluate Torq via the Hyperautomation Starter tier
  • Teams that prefer enterprise sales engagements and bundled deployment services

When to Choose Tines

  • Smaller security teams that benefit from the Community Edition during ramp-up
  • Organizations needing a self-hosted workflow runtime (data sovereignty, air-gap)
  • Security engineers comfortable with HTTP-first integration philosophy
  • MDR/MSSP providers building multi-tenant detection and response automation

Editor's Note: We deployed Tines for a fintech SOC in 2026 (about 25 analysts, 12,000 alerts/month) and the Community Edition was decisive: we stood up two production stories (phishing triage, identity event enrichment) before the procurement contract closed, which made the paid upgrade an easy internal sale. Torq won a separate engagement at a larger cloud-native organization where the Hyperautomation framing matched the customer's desire to expand beyond the SOC into IT operations. Both products are credible; the determining factors in our experience are the Community Edition (favors Tines for ramp-up) and the stakeholder profile (Torq sells well to executives buying hyper-automation; Tines sells well to engineers evaluating workflow primitives).

Written & reviewed by Rafal Fila · Last updated:

Tools Mentioned

Related Guides

guide

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.

comparison

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.

comparison

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.

Related 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.

Common Questions

Can you automate a platform with no API using Zapier?

Not as a proper Zapier app. Zapier's help centre, updated 29 May 2026, says a private app can be built "for any service with a public API", and its fallbacks for a missing app are email parsing, RSS, webhooks, asking Zapier to add the app, or using a different app. Those let a no-API platform tell a Zap that something happened; none of them lets a Zap act inside the platform. The Zapier Agents Chrome extension can "run actions" on a page open in your own browser (help article updated 27 April 2026), but that is hands-on help, not a reusable Zap step.

How does Moxo keep humans in control when AI agents run a workflow?

Moxo keeps people on the decisions by design: approvals and other human steps are ones its product page says "only a person can close", and AI agents can fill preparer, advisor or reviewer slots around them (both read 15 September 2026). The checks on AI output are opt-in, though. In synthetic AutomationAtlas tests that day, an AI extract step's "Human review" and "Supervisor Agent" switches were both off by default, and the builder accepted the same role as a form's submitter and its approver.

What is Moxo?

Moxo AI (app.moxo.com) is a process orchestration platform from Moxo, formerly Moxtra, for work where several parties, approvals and documents meet. You build templates of human steps, AI steps and automations, each run is a Flow with its own data and status, and outsiders act through account-free Magic Links. Its only published price is Team, and the AI agents start on the custom-quoted Scale plan (moxo.com/pricing, 15 September 2026). It is not Moxo Classic, the older app.

How much does Moxo cost in 2026?

Moxo's only published price is Team: $500 a month in the monthly view or $5,000 a year in the yearly view, for 100 flows and $100 of AI a year with unlimited seats (moxo.com/pricing, 15 September 2026). Scale (500 flows and $500 of AI a year) and Enterprise are custom quotes. There is no free plan, no published overage rate and no stated trial length, and the dollar AI allowance has no published conversion to the credits Moxo's product logs.