My use case for Torq encompasses all aspects of security automation. I utilize it for running automation for the security department, not all departments in my organization, but mainly for the security department.

I use it for operations automation, where I automate some of the operations processes. I also use it for a SOC platform, as I get all of my security incidents into Torq and prioritize and escalate to the relevant person to review and take response actions automatically.

The best features in Torq make it feel versatile and comprehensive. I can do everything with Torq. If something is not possible through out-of-the-box integration between two vendors, I can put Torq in the middle of the process and Torq will help me connect systems together, automate the entire process, and automate data flows, prioritization, and data manipulation.

Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq. If there are no direct integrations between two systems, Torq can always come in between them and automate the integration.

It has so many capabilities that I can connect everything by using APIs or HTTP requests or running scripts to automate the connection between systems. Regardless of how complex the things I would like to do with Torq are, I will always be able to do that. There is no such thing as not being able to do something with Torq; I will find a way to do that.

Agentic AI helps with alert handling by simplifying the process of parsing different data where data sources can change the schema of the data. It is really simple for me to do that with Torq and the Agentic AI; I do not need to keep track of everything and manage that manually in the automation, as the Agentic AI can do that for me.

Also, for the enrichment part, the Agentic AI can enrich all of my data straightforwardly with the right guardrails in place.

Regarding Torq's unified platform approach to AI SOC automation, I understand it is not a global feature yet, but they are working on one of the most critical features called Auto Triage. This feature would dramatically change the way AI SOC is provided to customers.

The AI can investigate cases or security incidents, and through their AI agents or engines, they can determine whether a case is a true positive benign, true positive malicious, or false positive. Based on this categorization, I can really reduce the amount of work that escalates for a human being to review and take action upon.

The areas that have room for improvement in Torq include the way cases or data can be presented and data manipulation in automation.

My experience using Torq is about a year and a half, or even more than that, maybe two years.

I would rate Torq's product stability at eight, acknowledging that there are bugs, glitches, and downtimes.

From a scalability perspective, I would rate Torq as a ten for my 30 people working globally.

I would rate the vendor's technical support as an eight.

When I decided to go with Torq, I did a POC with three other major players in the SOAR world. What I appreciated most about Torq is the simplicity to connect systems or to do things that are not available out of the box.

If Torq does not provide a step or an action out of the box to do with a third-party system, I can simply and straightforwardly plug it into Torq by reviewing the third-party system documentation and do it on my own without a lot of complexity. It is easy and impressive.

Torq is very easy to maintain.

Regarding how often maintenance is required, I would say that the maintenance involves automation, not the platform itself. It is maintaining the things that I have built, so I would say maintenance occurs on a weekly basis.

In terms of return on investment, I think I have saved about one hundred fifty percent in time, resources, and money.

Regarding the pricing of Torq, I would say it is expensive. All cyber solutions are expensive. When they bring more and more value into the platform, it makes more sense to pay that price, but still, it is expensive.

The other vendors I looked at include Demisto Palo Alto and Times, as well as Simplify, which is Google's Chronicle automation SOAR platform.

I realized the value of Torq even within days. It was much easier and much simpler. Even on the demo call, I asked very specific questions because I knew the gaps that I had in other platforms.

In the demo call, I saw that they had solutions to all of my pain points, so I knew from the beginning that it was going to be a match. I do recommend this product.

My advice to others looking into implementing it would be to utilize their AI agents to help build things they do not know how to do. Their AI assistants and AI agents helped me accomplish many complex tasks with minimal effort. I would rate this product a nine overall.

Torq markets itself as a security tool, and we do use them for security, but not in the traditional sense they market. Our security implementation uses them for internal tools that require multi-step processes of approvals, and it's easier to execute via workflow. Our biggest use case for Torq is onboarding and offboarding, which previously involved a very convoluted internal process. We made it automatic and secure by transforming these multi-step internal processes into rigid workflows, which provided security benefits.

Torq provided an excellent introduction to no-code automation for me personally. Before signing with them, we evaluated Torq and other similar companies. Torq gave us the best of both worlds where it's easy to get into, but it also provides enough options. Some applications offer way more flexibility, while others are easier to use, but Torq struck a good balance for us with its visual branching tree workflow of no-code automation. This was a great way for me to enter the field, and even now, after building very long workflows, it remains easy to jump back into and understand what's happening, and I can edit it on the fly.

Other than using API keys in workflows that sometimes need to be rotated, I cannot identify any needed updates. If you use an API key, it might expire, and then you need to enter the workflow or access the secrets in Torq to add a new one.

For any team, whether security or IT, looking to automate and wanting to do it fairly easily without using scripts or hosting something, no-code automation in general is something I would advise. Torq would obviously be my first recommendation because I personally use them. If I am already speaking with somebody who implemented it, I would probably help them build it in a smarter way than we did because even in no-code automation, you can build things that eventually need to be refactored and rebuilt in a better way, which is harder to do than leaving them as is. I would probably help a different customer of Torq who is just starting out by giving them best practices, such as splitting up your workflows, using nested workflows, and trying to immediately incorporate AI. If you build a rigid workflow and then add AI, you will not be satisfied with the result. These are best practices for the application that I would mostly give.

Our entire team personally works with Torq, which is four people. Our surrounding teams currently do not use Torq, but approximately six months ago, we created another workspace that we wanted to incorporate our development team into because we see the value in giving developers the option to build their own workflows for simple tasks. I started trying to help some of them adopt it and guide them through how to use Torq. For something as small as a developer who wants to get a daily alert about their tickets with a couple of parameters, it is just easier to do it via Torq than doing it via Jira.

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. There are not a lot of applications that do that generally for IT departments that do work for you. IT usually does not have their own internal tools. When I compare it to something like a ticketing system, it gives me more value than a ticketing system because it actually does work for me. That is how I see Torq.

I will specifically talk about the security team and the CISO. One of the biggest things we strive for internally when it comes to security, at least something front-facing, is on-demand permissions and ensuring that nobody has something that they do not need at the current moment. We also like going through multi-step approvals when it comes to security for any sensitive internal tool. For both of these options, we implemented them in Torq pretty much from the beginning. Eventually, we did pivot when it came to on-demand permissions, but that is because it is one of those things you can achieve via Torq even if they do not market themselves as that. We saw an impact pretty much immediately on all the manual work we had to do when it came to approvals and access to applications. We basically put everything in Torq, it took a while to build, and it gave us immediate impact on the time spent and gave the CISO immediate impact on users having only what they need whenever they need it when it comes to application access.

We do not utilize the AI features that much. When it comes to general AI features of Torq, we are just slowly starting to implement them because I feel that not just Torq, but most companies are just starting to figure out how best they can utilize it. It is not something we have found a lot of value in yet. Personally, I have not utilized it enough. It is a two-way road where I did not see enough value in it and I did not give it enough attention yet.

It is not personally the tool we go to for that purpose. It is not something I think we adopted for that purpose. I am not saying it is a pivot of theirs, but because it is something that we have not given enough attention yet, we rely on other tools in our stack to be that center point. We have not used something previously, and Torq has been one of the tools in our growing stack. It is something that is always available as other tools, but we have not picked it internally as our AI SOC tool.

Because we have not seen enough value, I cannot give you a lot of information about that. In general, in the niche that Torq is in the market, I think the biggest comparison they get is with N8N. Whenever I see a demo of them or look at a video or documentation, I always say that I would rather pick Torq over it. I feel that it is not just because I am used to it at this point; it was the best way to get into this kind of niche in the market. N8N is not hard and is also easy to get into, but for our use case, Torq, even when we started and it had fewer features than it has now and fewer steps that we can do in the workflow, filled our gap very quickly. It was immediately usable for our use case.

That is the strong point. We always strive for more features. I find myself sitting sometimes in front of a workflow wondering why it works this way because it feels like a convoluted way of doing this step. However, it is still something I can do. It is a good point and a bad point about Torq. I do not remember the last time I sat in front of trying to build something in Torq and said to myself that this is impossible and the platform does not allow it. There is always a way to do it. It might just not be the smartest way to do it. When I compare it to a lot of other applications we work with, most of the time, you just cannot do it and it becomes a feature request. Usually, nine out of ten times, if I have a problem with Torq, it is just that I do not the way I need to do something more so than that I just cannot do it.

Their AI is an area for improvement. When I heard about them implementing these features and going to agentic approaches, and when they showed us the AI features about a year ago, I became very harsh on AI features in general in the market because every company introduced them without a lot of value in it. Torq has a very difficult game to play where AI steps, on one hand, ruin the point of their workflows, and on the other hand, if implemented well, can be utilized amazingly. When you build a workflow in Torq for at least our use case, you want some sort of rigidity. I want to know that I will always get the same result that I want. The second you put in any AI step, you cannot guarantee that result. If you ask ChatGPT the same question ten times, you might get ten different answers. Torq has a very hard problem of how to implement AI as a model that you use in a step but still get ninety-nine out of one hundred times the result you want, which is usually good enough. Even today, and especially at first, I was not happy with a lot of AI features because I do not see a lot of value in them. Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree. I try to implement AI steps, give it a couple of runs, and I see that it has about an eighty percent success rate of what I want. I need to go back to rigid steps. It is a good and bad point where I appreciate that they pivot into it, but I do not think it is at a good place right now, at least for our use case, because it negates the point of rigid workflows.

There are a lot of small things about Torq where quality of life changes are needed, but that comes with no-code automation in general. Eventually, you build a huge branching tree of steps and it might be hard to navigate and might lag a little because it is huge. It is a very nice UI, but when you build enormous workflows as we do for our use case, it gets hard to navigate sometimes. It is not unusable and easy to jump back into, just hard to maintain. That is the price you pay with no-code automation in general.

The more workflows you have paid for, and as far as I know, you pay for a block of workflows, the sky is the limit. The only problem is that if you build one massive workflow and you do not want to rely on nested workflows, it might get a bit laggy. Scalability I would rate as an eight, maybe a nine. The world is your oyster, but no-code automation in itself has its own limits in a web UI.

The support is good. I would rate their support as an eight. I get answers fairly quickly and I do not remember the last time I talked to somebody who was not knowledgeable. They always know pretty well how to support whatever I ask. It goes to the point where if I need help in actually building something, nine out of ten times, they give me a solution even if it is not the solution I wanted, and I still can get to the result. One out of ten times, they straight up do not have it and it becomes a feature request, but they always know. I get support fairly quickly.

We have not used something previously. Torq has been one of the tools in our growing stack. It is something that is always available as other tools, but we have not picked it internally as our AI SOC tool.

If we are talking about cloud or local, there was no challenge. You get the tenant, get your website, and start working on it.

If we are talking about just getting into the platform and start working, it is immediate. It is basically a SaaS subscription. But as we talked earlier, if it is actually building, then yes, it took a while to understand, but I think that is a different question.

I did not lead the project in adopting it, but I had to be one of the people who set it up in our team. It took a bit longer to adapt than we initially thought, but it was always something we knew we needed. That is why we looked for something like that in the market. As a department fully, we wanted to pivot into internal automation. I would say it took us longer than we thought, and we were trying to figure out with Torq. We were sitting with them twice a week building out things. Seventy percent of that was us getting used to the platform and thirty percent of that was us giving some feedback or feature requests, a lot of feature requests. Torq grew with our needs a lot, but they were immediately usable at the start. The place we are at today with Torq, we are very satisfied with, but it took us like a year to start being somewhat content with the place we were, and then we were trying to make it better.

I am less aware of the pricing in terms of the negotiations itself. I do know how much it costs. I think it is at least compared to other solutions I heard in the market fairly priced. It just depends if they are using different modules as different pricing, especially now because a lot of companies are introducing AI, and that is where the price might get more iffy. I am not sure of that. But just for who Torq is in their niche, as far as I know, they are fairly priced.

To get it to a place that we are happy with, we are constantly working on it. When we adopted it and we started working on it, it pretty much took a year. It pretty much took until we got to our first renewal where we said that this is the value we see, this is the things we want more, but that is the first place where we said we are happy enough that we want to renew.

We buy direct from Torq.

Before we signed with them, we looked at Torq and other similar companies. Torq gave us the best of both worlds where it is easy to get into, but it also gives us enough options because some applications give you way more flexibility, while others are easier to use. Torq struck a good balance for us with its visual branching tree workflow of no-code automation.

I would rate Torq an eight overall. I feel that Torq is as good as the effort you put into it. The limitations are very small compared to other vendors I work with. The only thing that would change that score at this point is if they get set back by AI or not. If they put a lot of effort into AI and we personally do not see the value, then the score goes down to a seven because we eventually run out of things to automate. I can sit and work on a workflow for two hours and get two minutes of ROI on it. I can build everything, and it is just eventually I am wasting time. If they add more AI features and focus on it that we have use for, then I can go back and build better workflows, get more impact on the time I put into it, and then it stays an eight. If not, it might go down a little over time.

We utilize Torq as our central hyperautomation hub to bridge the gap between detection and remediation. Our primary use case involves ingesting alerts from our SIEM and Cloud Detection & Response (CDR) tools via webhooks. Once an alert is received, Torq triggers automated end-user interviews using HyperAgents to validate the activity. If confirmed, the system automatically generates Jira tickets for tracking. Beyond basic alerting, we use Torq to correlate high-fidelity threat intelligence from CrowdStrike and AWS GuardDuty, and to automate critical IT workflows such as user deprovisioning and group management.

We have used Torq to automate triage, investigation, and remediation actions across multiple attack surfaces including endpoint security, identity, and cloud. The initial deployment of Torq was straightforward.

Torq's Agentic AI has increased alert handling capability and capacity for our SecOps staff. Torq's unified platform approach to AI, SOAR, automation, and case management is superior compared to my experience managing multiple point solutions. Torq has changed the day-to-day experience for our security team.

There are areas where Torq could improve, and the solution does have some downsides that could be addressed.

I have been using Torq for approximately three years.

Torq has maintained good stability. I have not experienced lagging, crashing, or downtime with the solution.

Torq's support team is responsive with a speed rating of seven out of ten. The quality of their answers is satisfactory.

I have used alternatives to Torq.

I would rate my overall experience with Torq as a eight out of ten.

My role is Cyber Security Engineer, and we use Torq for our case management platform, automating some of our phishing workflows to automate the containment of account takeover users, which are probably our biggest use cases.

I have used Torq to automate triage, investigation, and remediation across multiple attack surfaces, including endpoint, identity, cloud, IT, and others.

In terms of increasing alert handling capability for our SecOps staff, Torq's Agentic AI is really strong in analysis, and recently, we started using what's called the AI Step, having really great success. Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone.

Torq has changed the day-to-day experience for my security analysts by enhancing their workload management and how they feel about their job, as they can now operate cases more quickly and have a nicer centralized location for information that previously required manual work.

Torq's unified platform approach to AI SOC automation and case management has significantly benefited us by integrating the case management platform with the automation, which saves time compared to managing multiple point solutions across our security stack.

Regarding the downsides of Torq, one issue is that as a SaaS product, I sometimes encounter transparency issues about what is going on behind the scenes, necessitating contact with Torq support to get logs in certain situations. From an engineering perspective, I think more error messages and error handling information for our engineering team would be very helpful.

I have been using Torq for approximately a year and a half.

Regarding stability, I have noticed some lagging, crashing, and downtime, which is one of my largest gripes. There are occasional odd issues, but they are generally not long-standing problems, just a little annoying.

Scalability of Torq is great; our case management is super scalable, and workflows are very easy to keep designing more of.

I have contacted Torq's technical support.

The speed and quality of their answers have been pretty good, as I usually get a response within 24 hours, and they follow up well. One specific instance was when an SSO token expired and I was unable to log into the platform, where I submitted an emergency ticket and received a very quick response, resolving the issue within a couple of hours.

I have used an alternative similar to Torq, which was Palo Alto XSOAR.

The initial deployment of Torq was pretty easy from my perspective. Torq provided a sales engineer who helped build things and ensured I understood the platform completely.

It took about three or four months of sales calls, testing, building, and then we officially deployed Torq just about a year ago after completing the purchase.

From the engineering side, the deployment can work with just one person, although managing everything else related to case management gets more complicated. Still, it is manageable with one person.

I saw the benefits of Torq pretty immediately. I worked with their sales engineers before we purchased the platform to build proof of concepts, so by the time we officially bought Torq, we already had two workflows that were very helpful to us.

Before deciding to implement Torq, I considered that compared to our old case management platform, Torq was a much better price and had a lot better value for what you get out of the platform, which was a key consideration for the company. I think it is a more modern case management system compared to our old platform, making it a nice modernization upgrade, especially since we barely had an automation platform before this.

Comparing them, the biggest difference that comes to mind is the significant cost difference, as Palo Alto charges a huge amount for their products. The experience of designing workflows in XSOAR versus Torq feels almost exactly the same with a drag-and-drop feature, but with Torq, it integrates intentionally with the case management platform without extra charges.

In comparison to other solutions I have used, for how new the company Torq is, it is pretty well set up. The user experience, such as the design of the workflow building, is very similar to a previous automation tool I used, which made it easy for me to start building immediately because it has an intuitive, modern workflow building user interface.

Torq's maintenance requirements depend on how you define maintenance. While Torq handles the platform's overall reliability, I have to perform maintenance on the workflows I build when bugs arise.

I have no partnerships, but once, they sent me a really cool hoodie.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten overall.