Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cyware Cyber Fusion vs Torq comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cyware Cyber Fusion
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
22nd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (28th)
Torq
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
8th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (13th), AI-Powered Security Automation (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Cyware Cyber Fusion is 1.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Torq is 4.9%, up from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Torq4.9%
Cyware Cyber Fusion1.5%
Other93.6%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2342886 - PeerSpot reviewer
Director of Cyber Security APAC at a pharma/biotech company with 10,001+ employees
The threat emails are not tailored to our company, though the product is stable
The threat emails are not tailored to our company. It just gives us every newsletter and bombards our email box. The solution must be able to provide threat feeds. We shouldn’t have to rely on third parties and pay for additional licenses. The tool doesn't integrate well with ServiceNow. It is our main ticketing platform.
Nimrod Vardi - PeerSpot reviewer
Global IT Director at OpenWeb
Automation workflows have transformed our IT, enabling secure just-in-time access control
We work with them quite often, so we have a direct line regarding areas in Torq that have room for improvement. If we have a feature request, we can request it. I do not have anything in mind at the moment. We were a design partner for a short while, so we feel that they listen and that users of the system have an impact on the way the system is designed for the better. They have a new community, which is something that I personally suggested years ago. There are many people like me in different places and they might have already built the workflow that I need. Having the option to share workflows or to jump on a thread and say I have this need, did anyone ever build a workflow for it, is amazing. Someone would jump in and say yes, sure, here, take this workflow. I think this is an amazing thing and I really hope that the community will come alive because I think this is really powerful. This is something that I already suggested and it did happen eventually, and I am quite happy with it. I do not have any specific feature in mind that I have a need for at the moment.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The technical support team is helpful."
"The product is stable."
"Once I started to use the system and I saw the potential, it changed all of our work in IT."
"As an analyst, it has demonstrated potential to reduce workforce requirements and time needed for related activities."
"What I appreciate most about Torq is that it is an essential part of our system."
"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
 

Cons

"The prices must be reduced."
"The tool doesn't integrate well with ServiceNow."
"It was able to capture data but was unable to differentiate between the agent hostname we are using and the hostname that resides on the back end of the Internet."
"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."
"Regarding stability, I have noticed some lagging, crashing, and downtime, which is one of my largest gripes."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Cyware Threat Intelligence eXchange?
The threat emails are not tailored to our company. It just gives us every newsletter and bombards our email box. The solution must be able to provide threat feeds. We shouldn’t have to rely on thir...
What is your primary use case for Cyware Threat Intelligence eXchange?
We use the solution for the correlation of threat feeds and reporting.
What needs improvement with Torq?
From our research and testing with the tool, we determined there need to be modifications and changes to train the LLM on the back end. It was able to capture data but was unable to differentiate b...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
I used Torq for conducting one of the proof of evaluations for a vendor we are connected with. I am currently working with Omnisoc, which provides SOC services for twenty-three other higher educati...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
One of our members uses AWS, and we receive their feed. This involves triaging AWS-related logs. While I do not have direct work experience with it, I am familiar with AWS-related services and data...
 

Also Known As

CSOL, Fusion and Threat Response, Threat Intelligence eXchange, Security Orchestration and Automation (SOAR)
No data available
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Cyware Cyber Fusion vs. Torq and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.