Mate Security
6.22 of 10 on the nine published rows. 6th of 12 covered, 6th of 14 scored. Agentic platform, not a SOAR. Scores read 3 November 2026.
Mate Security is not a SOAR. It replaces playbooks with Gamebooks, written as investigative intent for AI agents, and is scored here on what it documents as its answer to each of the nine jobs. It ranks sixth of 14 at 6.22: approvals are documented in three modes, but deployment, residency and integration count are not published.
What it is
Mate Security describes agents that investigate alerts, hunt, tune detections and take response actions on a Security Context Graph of organisational facts. A Gamebook states what an agent must establish, what evidence it needs, which actions are permitted and when to escalate, stop or ask for approval. Tool calls sit in Flows that Mate maintains. Mate announced a Series A on 2026-07-28, reported as USD 35M by a headline on its newsroom and by SiliconANGLE, which says Canaan led it, and Gamebooks reached general availability on 2026-08-26 (SiliconANGLE, read 2026-11-03). Its USD 15.5M seed was announced on 2025-11-17. Its 98.7 percent accuracy figure on 7,200 alerts and its 97 percent auto-closure figure are vendor claims, are not scored here, and are capped by the rubric.
Mate publishes no playbook file format, because a Gamebook is described in plain language and tested by Mate. Mate says it tests a change against past cases, runs it in shadow mode and waits for sign-off. No export of a Gamebook is documented, and no public technical docs were found. Five criteria are answered by a different mechanism than a SOAR: authoring by Gamebooks, integrations by Flows and categories, case management by a dashboard and ticket context, migration by translation of SOAR playbooks, and hosting by nothing stated. The rubric scores each on the documented answer, which lowers Mate on cases and hosting because the pages are silent.
The vendor describes itself this way: Agentic security operations platform. AI agents investigate alerts, hunt, write and tune detections and take response actions, using a graph of organisational context (the Security Context Graph) and structured investigation procedures (Gamebooks). Mate calls the category Agentic Cyber Defense. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
How Mate Security scores
Nine rows, weights summing to 100, each scored 0 to 10 from pages read on 2026-11-03. The part is score times weight divided by 100. How the scoring works.
| Row | Score | Weight | Part | Reason and source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Playbook authoring model | 7.0 | 14 | 0.98 | Not a playbook builder. Documented answer: a Gamebook describes investigative intent, required evidence, permitted actions and escalation points in plain language; Mate says it tests the description against past cases and runs it in shadow mode before sign-off. Tool contact sits in separate Flows that Mate maintains. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim); mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| Integration count and depth documented | 5.0 | 14 | 0.70 | 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) |
| Case management and collaboration | 5.0 | 8 | 0.40 | No case management product. Documents an investigations dashboard with priority, status and analyst notes and a ticket-context integration. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| Approvals and human-in-the-loop controls | 8.5 | 12 | 1.02 | Three autonomy modes on the platform page: Recommend only, Supervised (risky changes still ask) and Auto-run under guardrails and audit; Gamebooks define when the agent must escalate, stop or ask for approval. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim); mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| Agentic or AI features that are documented | 8.0 | 12 | 0.96 | Agents on a Security Context Graph for triage, investigation, response and hunting. Mate's own figures (98.7 percent accuracy on 7,200 alerts, 97 percent false-positive auto-closure) are unaudited vendor claims; the page does not give who measured. Agents do not hold open access to systems; Flows make the tool calls. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim); siliconangle.com, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| Hosting and data residency options | 3.5 | 8 | 0.28 | Platform page and home page do not state deployment model or data residency; a Trust Center and compliance badges are shown. Re-read pending. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 |
| Pricing model and transparency | 6.0 | 8 | 0.48 | A USD 150,000 per 12 months Enterprise tier list price appears on AWS Marketplace with private offers by email; mate.security itself publishes no price. aws.amazon.com, read 2026-11-03 |
| Migration tooling and import or export formats | 5.0 | 14 | 0.70 | 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); mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| Ownership stability | 7.0 | 10 | 0.70 | Independent; SiliconANGLE reports a USD 35M Series A led by Canaan in July 2026 and more than USD 50M raised in total. Founded recently; Gamebooks reached general availability on 2026-08-26. siliconangle.com, read 2026-11-03 |
| Total | 6.22 | 100 | 6.22 | Band 3 on the card; totals within 0.25 are a band, not a ladder. |
How the rubric treats Mate
Mate Security places 6th of 14 (6.22), 1.02 behind Cyware and 0.20 behind Tines (6.42) and 0.46 behind Splunk SOAR (6.68). It is 0.01 ahead of Microsoft Sentinel and ahead of Swimlane, Cortex XSOAR, Google SecOps, Blink Ops and ServiceNow. Why: its highest score is approvals (8.5, three documented autonomy modes) and AI (8.0). It loses ground on hosting (3.5, nothing documented on deployment or residency), integrations (5.0, ten categories and no count), case management (5.0, no case product) and migration (5.0, translation claimed, no source platform or format named, no export, which the migration rule scores as no documented path). Mate is not a SOAR, so five criteria are answered by a different mechanism: authoring (Gamebooks), integrations (Flows and categories), case management (dashboard and ticket context), migration (translation of SOAR playbooks into Gamebooks) and hosting (not stated). The rubric scores each on the documented answer and never skips; that lowers Mate on cases and hosting because the documentation is silent, not because the job is different. Without the migration and ownership criteria Mate moves up to 4th (6.34); if every needs_reread item is lifted to 6.0 Mate is 8th (6.42); see order_without_migration_and_ownership. Mate's 98.7 percent accuracy figure is not scored: it is an unaudited vendor claim and is capped at the AI criterion's 8.0.
No criterion is skipped. Where a product is not a SOAR (Mate Security), each criterion is scored on what the vendor documents as its answer to that job: Gamebooks for authoring, categories of integration for the integration count, ticket and dashboard for case management, autonomy modes for approvals, and so on. What the vendor does not document scores as not documented. The page for that vendor must say which criteria are answered by a different mechanism.
Where Mate Security is strong
- Approvals score 8.5. The platform page documents three autonomy modes: Recommend only, Supervised, where risky changes still ask, and Auto-run under guardrails and audit. Gamebooks define when the agent must escalate, stop or ask for approval. All of it is vendor claim. mate.security, read 2026-11-03
- Mate says agents do not hold open access to systems and that Flows make the tool calls, and that Gamebook changes are tested against past cases and run in shadow mode before sign-off. Vendor claim. mate.security, read 2026-11-03
- A price is visible, though not on mate.security: AWS Marketplace shows an Enterprise tier list price of USD 150,000 per 12 months, with private offers by email. aws.amazon.com, read 2026-11-03
Where Mate Security is behind
- Nothing is published on deployment, residency or integration count. The platform page lists ten integration categories and no count. A bug-bounty page calls it a SaaS offering and a German page names STACKIT, a European sovereign cloud, but no page states regions or retention. Hosting scores 3.5. mate.security, read 2026-11-03
- Migration is claimed without named formats. Mate says it translates SOAR playbooks into Gamebooks, but no page names a source SOAR, an input format or what fails to convert, and no export of a Gamebook is documented. Migration scores 5.0, the floor of the partial band, because a claim that names no source and no format counts as no documented path. mate.security, read 2026-11-03
- The 711 playbooks into 10 Gamebooks figure, with 3 weeks against 9 months expected, is one unnamed Fortune 500 customer quoted on Mate's own page. It is a vendor claim with no method and no named source SOAR. mate.security, read 2026-11-03
A fact only Mate Security has
Mate says a custom Gamebook goes live only after Mate tests the change against past cases, runs it in shadow mode, and a customer signs it off, which is a vendor claim. mate.security, read 2026-11-03
Pricing as published
No pricing page on mate.security. The only public price is an AWS Marketplace 12-month contract line of USD 150,000 for the Mate Enterprise Tier, with the usage unit undefined and private offers available. aws.amazon.com, read 2026-11-04
| Item | Price | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Mate Enterprise Tier, 12-month contract on AWS Marketplace (one usage tier; the unit a tier measures is not defined on the listing; private offers via sales@mate.security) | USD 150,000 per 12 months | aws.amazon.com, read 2026-11-04 |
Ownership and funding
Series A announced 2026-07-28 with Insight Partners, Team8, Canaan Partners and M12. No acquisition, merger or rebrand found on the Mate newsroom or blog. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
Seed round of 15.5M USD announced 2025-11-17, from Team8 and Insight Partners, at emergence from stealth. Source is the Insight Partners copy of the press release (ACCESS Newswire). This figure does not appear on mate.security. insightpartners.com, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
Series A announced 2026-07-28. Mate's CEO post of 2026-07-30 confirms a Series A, names Insight Partners and Team8 as continuing investors and Canaan Partners and M12 (Microsoft's venture fund) as new, and gives no amount. The newsroom lists an Axios headline 'Mate Security raises $35M' (2026-07-28) and a Business Insider headline 'Mate Security Reaches $50M Funding Milestone' (2026-07-28). Calcalist (search result excerpt, not read in full) says 35M USD Series A and more than 50M USD total. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
The brief's '15.5M USD seed' is out of date as the company's current funding line. mate.security shows a Series A (2026-07) and press headlines of 35M USD and 50M USD. Sites should say: 15.5M seed (2025-11), 35M Series A (2026-07, press report), total above 50M USD (press report). mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
Named customers
- Bridgewater Associates source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- Lead Bank source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- Fitch Group source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- AlphaSense source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- OCBC source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- Merlin Entertainments source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- monday.com source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- Freshworks source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- Demandbase source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- Applied Systems source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- Anaplan source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- Bright Data source, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
5 more names appear on the vendor's pages.
Recent releases
- 2026-11-03 Blue City benchmark published on Mate Labs. Simulated-enterprise benchmark for AI defenders; five out-of-the-box agents compared; Mate system not attached. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- 2026-10 CPR framework (Confidence, Precision, Reversibility) described as the gate for autonomous actions. Blog post 2026-10-18 and platform page; webinar 2026-11-17. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- 2026-08-26 Gamebooks launched. Structured investigation procedures; SOAR playbook migration into Gamebooks. SiliconANGLE coverage 2026-08-26 per newsroom; Mate blog post 2026-08-27. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- 2026-07-28 Series A. See facts funding_series_a. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- 2026-05-18 Continuous Detection / Continuous Response (CD/CR) framework published. Detection, investigation and response on one reasoning plane; investigations compress into detections. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
- 2026-02-19 Security Context Graph introduced. Graph of 'memories' that agents traverse during investigations. mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim)
Claims Mate Security makes about itself
These are vendor claims. They are not scored. Each carries an evidence grade: C means a vendor figure with no published method.
| Claim | Grade | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 98.7 percent accuracy with Mate on 7,200 alerts | C | mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| 97 percent false-positive auto-closure | C | mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| 6.1x investigation coverage | C | mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| Frontier models alone reach 69 percent (Gemini 3.8 Flash), 51 percent (GPT-6.1 Sol, subset), 72 percent (Claude Opus 5.5) and 71 percent (Claude Sonnet 5.5) on 7,200 alerts; Mate reaches 98.7 percent | C | mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| In testing on real customer cases, generic AI was right about 60 percent of the time; with Mate's context about 97 percent | C | mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| 6x more alerts investigated at a Fortune 500 customer | C | mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| 80 percent of false positives closed automatically at a Fortune 500 customer | C | mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
| Mate agents close up to 85 percent of false positives | C | mate.security, read 2026-11-03 (vendor claim) |
What the public pages did not say
- No integrations page, connector count or docs site; tool names appear only as examples.
- No list of supported containment or response actions per tool.
- No methodology for the 98.7 percent accuracy, 97 percent auto-closure or 6.1x coverage figures (alert source, labelling, period, definition, baseline).
- Blue City benchmark does not include Mate's own system, so no published benchmark of Mate itself.
- No third-party or customer-run measurement of accuracy, auto-closure or MTTR; customer quotes give no figures.
- Gartner and Latio reports are behind sign-in; Mate's page does not say how Mate is named in them. Report titles differ between the home page and the it-sa-2026 page.
Gaps recorded on 3 November 2026. A gap is an absence on the pages read, and it is scored that way.
Who should shortlist Mate Security
- You want to test an agent-run alternative beside a playbook SOAR, with shadow mode and sign-off before any Gamebook goes live.
- Your policy needs autonomy set per action class, with Recommend only, Supervised and Auto-run.
- You will run a proof of concept to establish what the pages do not say: supported source SOARs, integrations and residency.
Verdict. Mate Security is sixth of 14 scored at 6.22, 1.02 behind Cyware and in a band with Tines (6.42), Microsoft Sentinel (6.21), Palo Alto Cortex XSOAR (6.18) and Swimlane (6.14); it is ahead on approvals and behind on cases, hosting and migration.
Mate Security against the other eleven
- BlinkOps v Mate Security
- Cyware v Mate Security
- D3 Security v Mate Security
- Google Security Operations v Mate Security
- Mate Security v Microsoft Sentinel
- Mate Security v Palo Alto Cortex XSOAR
- Mate Security v ServiceNow Security Operations
- Mate Security v Splunk SOAR (Cisco)
- Mate Security v Swimlane (Turbine)
- Mate Security v Tines
- Mate Security v Torq
Alternatives to Mate Security, ordered by the rubric.