No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Google Security Operations vs ThreatQ comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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

Torq
Sponsored
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (1st), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st)
Google Security Operations
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
13th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (28th), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (12th)
ThreatQ
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
25th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (23rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Torq is 3.8%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Google Security Operations is 3.6%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatQ is 1.4%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Torq3.8%
Google Security Operations3.6%
ThreatQ1.4%
Other91.2%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

AD
Solutions Architect at ProArch
Automation has streamlined multi-tenant SOC workflows and improves alert handling efficiency
Although the reporting within Torq is not that great, we did ask for many features regarding reporting in Torq, but due to some platform constraints, they could not make the whole dataset available for us to be used in reporting. Except for that, we used some basic reporting. When I used Torq, it was indeed in the early stages of AI capabilities. Only a few customers were allowed to use it, and we were among them. It functioned well as long as we summarized the data properly. If you input garbage, you would get garbage out. Thus, we had to do significant fine-tuning regarding what data context we provided to the AI orchestrator to get meaningful results. In terms of Torq's unified platform approach to AI SOC automation and case management compared to managing multiple point solutions across my security stack, I find it case-centric. The unified view in case management is good since it provides clarity, although there are limitations regarding how many items in case management can be modified at once. Bulk operations are very limited, potentially due to their back-end database or data retrieval processes that can be improved. Regarding improvements for Torq, when we were onboarded, there were aspects we were uncertain about, such as the number of cases that could be generated, what data we could bring in, how many clients we could onboard, and similar concerns. Initially, we also lacked clarity about the number of playbooks or workflows we could build. Different triggers like system triggers, case-based triggers, and others can be employed without restrictions, but when it comes to on-demand and scheduled jobs, there is a limitation based on the subscription and pricing tier that notably caps the number of workflows we can create. No bulk editing across cases was one issue, along with limited filtering related to single grouping constraints. Additionally, the out-of-the-box case templates provided require substantial modifications before they become usable. There is also a feature in the cases for notes that cannot be searched. They are only visible through the UI, which is another area for improvement. The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially. I am not sure if new customers are made aware of this. It seems that workflows revolving around cases hinder functionality outside of case management, as we have many use cases needing on-demand triggers and schedules for functions like reporting or polling devices. Creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers. While they facilitate optimization and scaling, the support received tends to be very basic. Improvements can be made in that area as well.
CK
Technical Lead at a transportation company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Simplified detection rules and SOAR workflows have improved compliance-focused operations
One improvement I am looking for is silent log source monitoring. If some feed or some host went offline or was not pulling any logs into Google Security Operations, I would want better visibility. Silent host monitoring would make a significant difference because it is very hard to track which host went down, and there are many false positives as a result. I think there is a lot of room for scalability improvements, particularly in the integration of third-party applications. Currently, I have to write a script and use a cloud run function to pull logs. If there were direct ingestion by simply providing an API key and some sort of client certificate, it would be much easier.
Yasir Akram - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Engineer at Freelancer
Good reporting and pretty stable but needs to be simpler to use
The support team of ThreatQ set up a VM on our VPN, which was SlashNext's private VPN. Then we just initiated some system calls and ThreatQ provided us the configuration file with our settings (like our email, our API key, our URL, our category, etc.). They set up a VM on our private VPN cloud. And then they provided us the configuration file in which we just entered our details like our company URL, our API category, and API keys et cetera. We could just add it on the configuration file. We just uploaded it to the ThreatQ server. After running the system calls, we just initiated the ThreatQ and then performed tasks on the UI, such as categorizing the reports. If we only wanted the report for phishing, then we just manipulated the data on the UI and just extracted the reports. That's all. The deployment was complex. We used high hardware specifications. I don't remember the exact specifications, however, I recall them being high. There were some services that had some compatibility errors. That's why we had our VMs - to make sure that the customer would not face any errors. Everything's deployed with high specifications and custom specifications. That was the biggest challenge for us - to deploy on the customer VMs. On average, deployment takes 15-20 minutes if it's deployed without any errors. I was with one of the NetOps network admin during deployment. We were only two people and we just deployed and installed all services and we executed the deployment.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"According to positive outcomes, Torq reduced manual work and made incident response more efficient."
"If I review about 100 vendors that I might work with, Torq is definitely in the top five that gave me personally investment back, just because every bit of effort I put into Torq eventually became a workflow that gave it back to me."
"Torq has exceeded expectations by delivering workflows in a timely and lower effort manner than XSOAR, and it meets all my needs while saving a ton of time and targeting $600,000 saved this year, which is a substantial amount of money."
"Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq."
"We have seen fewer failures of automations from the time Torq came into the picture, we've had a more streamlined process of handling incidents, and at the same time, we've learned to embed the AI into our incident types, and that is how it has helped us in the automation."
"As an analyst, it has demonstrated potential to reduce workforce requirements and time needed for related activities."
"Torq's unified platform approach to AI, SOAR, automation, and case management is superior compared to my experience managing multiple point solutions."
"Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes."
"Google SecOps is extremely useful for threat detection and hunting."
"Without hyperbole, I have never, in my entire career, encountered a vendor or a vendor community as awesome as Siemplify. Siemplify and the Siemplify Community quite literally made it possible for our SOC to increase almost five-fold in our number of clients and number of analysts and to go from a Monday to Friday 9-5 shop to a 24/7 shop all in the span of under a year and a half and all while continually adding capabilities and improving the services we offer to our clients."
"Google Security Operations helps meet all the important regulatory compliance across all verticals."
"The most valuable feature of Siemplify is the playbooks that can be created."
"The playbooks feature in Siemplify is crucial for automation. We've utilized both standard and custom integrations with other security operation solutions, enhancing our flexibility. The user interface is generally straightforward, although recent changes may require some adjustment and Siemplify's integrations and capabilities offer potential support for various compliance requirements."
"The valuable parts of Google Security Operations include how easy it is to write parsers or detection rules, and it is well-advanced in the analytical part."
"Overall, Google SecOps is a very useful service for security operations."
"Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy."
"The reporting services are great. With reporting services, if you have customers that just visit a URL you can see the result - including why it's blocked and how and how the URL was first recognized as malicious."
 

Cons

"Additionally, the documentation for Torq is not very clear. Most of the information is presented in videos, which are not ideal for reading; there are mostly paragraphs and other text-based content."
"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."
"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."
"Torq can probably use more ML and look at what can be closed and what cannot be closed in terms of data classification."
"Regarding the pricing of Torq, I would say it is expensive."
"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"Regarding stability, I have noticed some lagging, crashing, and downtime, which is one of my largest gripes."
"The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially, and creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers."
"We often encounter minor issues that could be improved, but we maintain communication with the developers and submit feature requests. Recently, I requested enhancements such as improved search functionality within playbooks and expanded options for exporting case data."
"The main improvement could be in the accuracy and detail provided in threat descriptions."
"I'm inclined to say that I'd love to see some Machine Learning capabilities integrated into the platform, however, I just attended a demo this morning where Siemplify gave a sneak peek into some Machine Learning capabilities that they are currently developing and have roadmapped for release soon."
"I can give customer service a rating of six because it is very hard sometimes to keep up with the support."
"Building the playbooks could be easier and the integration could improve. It is a difficult process, such as what API connections need to be made."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
University
7%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Educational Organization
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Large Enterprise3
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?
I do not dislike anything about Torq because it has satisfied all of our use cases and requirements. We contacted sup...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
Initially, we were using Slack for small automations, such as creating pipelines or shutting down servers. For exampl...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
I have been working for five years with experience in the IT field. Torq is very good. It manages everything. I would...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Siemplify?
The pricing for Google SecOps and Microsoft Sentinel is almost the same, with no significant differences.
What needs improvement with Siemplify?
A potential area of improvement for Google Security Operations could be cost. I think Google has already started deve...
What is your primary use case for Siemplify?
Google Security Operations is the main tool that my clients use for the security operations of their companies.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Siemplify ThreatNexus
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
FedEx Mondelez Intenrational Check Point Trustwave Atos Cyberint Bae Systems Crowe Longwall Security Telefonica Nordea HCL
Radar, Bitdefender, Crowdstrike, FireEye, IBM Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Google Security Operations vs. ThreatQ and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.