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

IBM Resilient vs ThreatQ comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 2024

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)
IBM Resilient
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
18th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Security Incident Response (7th)
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 IBM Resilient is 2.3%, up from 1.9% 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%
IBM Resilient2.3%
ThreatQ1.4%
Other92.5%
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.
ZaidHaddad - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Seller at Alawtad group
Suitable for different industries and ensures effective incident response
IBM Resilient is great in many aspects like its wide range of integrations and customizable playbooks. However, one thing to improve is how it handles data formats, which currently might require scripting for conversion to CSV before uploading. Despite this, it stands out for incident response, case management, task organization, and team collaboration, making it a strong choice for organizations compared to competitors like Demisto Palo Alto. When it comes to additional features, I think IBM Resilient is on the right track with its AI capabilities, like linking related incidents and providing recommended actions. It would be nice to see more enhancements in this area, but overall, it looks good.
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

"Torq has helped a lot regarding SOC analyst efficiency."
"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."
"Once I started to use the system and I saw the potential, it changed all of our work in IT."
"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes."
"Since we started working with Torq, I am handling much fewer alerts, it is becoming really easy for me to handle an alert, I have all the information that I need, I do not need to connect to different vendors to receive this information, and the main thing I got from Torq is time, which now helps me to build another automated system and learn."
"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."
"The solution is reliable in our usage."
"What I like most about IBM Resilient is that it has a complete stack, which means you don't need to use different OEM products because you have all you need under the IBM Resilient umbrella. You don't need to worry much about integrations and components because you're working with tested and proven architecture."
"It's really simple and has a flexible interface."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable thing about it is how easy it is to navigate the user interface."
"The most valuable features of IBM Resilient are its flexibility and customization options for incident response."
"This is a good solution that we recommend for customers."
"The solution is easy to use."
"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."
"Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy."
 

Cons

"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."
"Regarding stability, I have noticed some lagging, crashing, and downtime, which is one of my largest gripes."
"Regarding the pricing of Torq, I would say it is expensive."
"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."
"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"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."
"I wish Torq's AI assistant for building templated workflows from scratch worked better; when you start with a blank slate, asking AI to help you build or template the workflow out does not go well."
"Torq does extensive marketing saying that SOAR is dead and markets itself as an all-in-one solution, but this is not actually true."
"What could make IBM Resilient better is if IBM increased the number of built-in integrations with different products from other vendors or third-party products."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The initial setup is not straightforward or simple. It's quite complex."
"Integration with some devices, including Cisco PowerPower and certain antivirus products, has limitations."
"The product must provide more integration with other tools."
"The ability to analyze incidents needs to be improved in the solution."
"One thing to improve is how it handles data formats, which currently might require scripting for conversion to CSV before uploading."
"The implementation could be a bit simpler."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is very expensive."
"We could create unlimited users using the license we had purchased."
"Pricing for the solution is good, in my opinion."
"There is a license you need to pay for in order to use this product."
"I feel it is an expensive product when my company pays annually for renewal, support, and follow-up."
"The cost of the product is quite high."
"The licensing cost for IBM Resilient is not too expensive, but it's not affordable, so it's moderately expensive. Regarding price, I'm rating the solution seven out of ten. The company pays for the license yearly, based on the number of users. Apart from the cost of the license you need to pay for each user, you also need to spend an initial investment for the base platform. You also have to pay for IBM Resilient support."
"I would rate the tool’s pricing a three out of ten. The tool’s pricing is on a yearly basis."
Information not available
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
28%
Construction Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
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 Business9
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise7
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 IBM Resilient?
I am not the one in charge of pricing, so I am not sure about the costs.
What needs improvement with IBM Resilient?
Integration with some devices, including Cisco PowerPower and certain antivirus products, has limitations.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Golden Living, Health Equity, USA Funds
Radar, Bitdefender, Crowdstrike, FireEye, IBM Security
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Resilient vs. ThreatQ and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.