After SOAR

Instead of Mate Security

Mate Security scores 6.22 of 10 and sits 6 of 12 on the card. The gaps below are the reasons a team looks elsewhere. Each alternative is placed by what it answers.

Where Mate Security leaves gaps

The platform page names containment examples in prose, such as revoking a session, isolating a host and blocking a URL, but publishes no list of supported containment actions per tool. mate.security, read 2026-11-03

  • The Blue City benchmark compares five out-of-the-box agents over 32 scored incidents each, with effectiveness from 40.2 to 80.1 percent. Mate's own system is not attached, so no published benchmark of Mate itself exists. mate.security, read 2026-11-03
  • The Gartner and Latio reports Mate cites sit behind sign-in, so how Mate is named in them could not be read. Latio's founder is quoted on Mate's home page and co-hosts two Mate webinars. mate.security, read 2026-11-03

Where Mate Security scores lowest on the rubric

  • Hosting and data residency options, 3.5 of 10: Platform page and home page do not state deployment model or data residency; a Trust Center and compliance badges are shown. mate.security, read 2026-11-03
  • Integration count and depth documented, 5.0 of 10: Platform page lists ten integration categories (Slack, ticketing, Microsoft identity and mail, cloud risk, email security, threat intel, EDR, Google, identity context) and names Defender and AWS IAM actions. No count. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
  • Migration tooling and import or export formats, 5.0 of 10: Mate says it translates SOAR playbooks into Gamebooks and its blog cites one unnamed customer's 711 playbooks becoming 10 Gamebooks (vendor claim). The pages name no source platform and no format, and no export of Gamebooks is documented, so the claim sits at the floor of the partial band and the matrix scores it as no documented path. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)

The alternatives, in the order that answers the gaps

  1. Cyware, 7.24 of 10. Cyware is first at 7.24. It states 400+ integrations and documents hybrid hosting, which answers the count and hosting silence, as a vendor claim from one page. Cyware v Mate Security.
  2. Torq, 6.77 of 10. Torq is second at 6.77. It documents a case module and workflow export, and a dated Series D, though it publishes no price and no integration count. Mate Security v Torq.
  3. Splunk SOAR (Cisco), 6.68 of 10. Splunk SOAR is third at 6.68. It documents cloud, on-prem and hybrid hosting and agents with stated limits, and it states 300+ tools and 2,800+ actions as a vendor claim. Mate Security v Splunk SOAR (Cisco).
  4. D3 Security, 6.67 of 10. D3 Security is fourth at 6.67. It states 800+ integrations, publishes pricing structure and documents four autonomy modes, a closer match to Mate's modes than most SOARs. D3 Security v Mate Security.
  5. Tines, 6.42 of 10. Tines is fifth at 6.42. It documents a self-hosted option and a free edition, which answers the hosting and price gaps. Mate Security v Tines.

Mate Security on its own: profile. If you are leaving it, see the portability matrix.