Head-to-head, ranks 1 and 2 of 12
Mate Security vs Torq
The short answer
Mate Security totals 6.70 and Torq 6.50. Mate Security ranks higher by 0.20 points. The decisive criterion is integration transparency, where Mate Security scores 3 and Torq 8. Mate Security leads on 4 criteria, Torq on 2.
Seven scores side by side
| Criterion | Weight | Mate Security | Torq |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use-case breadth | 20% | 9 | 7 |
| Context grounding | 15% | 9 | 7 |
| Autonomy controls | 15% | 8 | 8 |
| Published evidence | 15% | 4 | 3 |
| Integration transparency | 15% | 3 | 8 |
| Pricing transparency | 10% | 4 | 2 |
| Momentum and recognition | 10% | 9 | 10 |
| Weighted total | 100% | 6.70 | 6.50 |
Where Mate Security is ahead
- Use-case breadth, 9 against 7. Four of the seven use cases have a product or feature page; insider risk, exposure and security engineering are one-line tiles.
- Context grounding, 9 against 7. The Security Context Graph stores memories with source, confidence and freshness, and Mate says it learns from tickets and documents in hours.
- Published evidence, 4 against 3. The 98.7 percent, 97 percent and 6.1x figures carry no method (grade C); the Blue City method is published but does not test Mate.
- Pricing transparency, 4 against 2. No pricing page; one AWS Marketplace line of 150,000 USD for 12 months with no defined usage unit.
Where Torq is ahead
- Integration transparency, 8 against 3. A large public catalog; the first screen alone runs from 1Password to Check Point, though no total is stated.
- Momentum and recognition, 10 against 9. 140M USD Series D at 1.2B USD (2026-01-12), the Jit acquisition, and an IDC MarketScape Leader placement (2026-10-20, per Torq).
Verdict by situation
- Lean SOC: For a lean SOC, Torq leads 6.55 to 6.35, mostly on integration transparency (8 against 3); Mate Security only makes sense if that criterion matters little to you.
- Enterprise SOC with SOAR already: For an enterprise SOC that already runs SOAR, Torq leads 6.90 to 6.85, mostly on integration transparency (8 against 3); Mate Security only makes sense if that criterion matters little to you.
- Microsoft estate: For a Microsoft-centred estate, Mate Security leads 6.20 to 5.90, mostly on integration transparency (3 against 8); Torq only makes sense if that criterion matters little to you.
- Regulated and audited: For a regulated or audited organisation, Mate Security leads 6.15 to 5.80, mostly on integration transparency (3 against 8); Torq only makes sense if that criterion matters little to you.
- MSSP: For an MSSP, Torq leads 6.65 to 6.35, mostly on integration transparency (8 against 3); Mate Security only makes sense if that criterion matters little to you.
The sourced difference on integration transparency
Mate Security, per mate.security: No integrations page, connector count or docs site (read 2026-11-03). Tools named only as examples: CrowdStrike, Microsoft Defender, Device42; categories SIEM, EDR, identity, cloud, ticketing, HR, email, threat intel, Slack, wikis. Available on AWS Marketplace (2026-01-15) and through STACKIT (European sovereign cloud).
Torq, per torq.io: Large catalog (first screen alone: 1Password, Abnormal, AbuseIPDB, Anthropic Claude, Anvilogic, ANY.RUN, Apiiro, Aqua, Armis, Asana, Astrix, Jira, AWS, AWS Security Lake, Axonius, BambooHR, BigID, Box, Brinqa, Britive, Carbon Black, Check Point); no count stated on the page.
Both read between 2026-11-03 and 2026-11-05. Vendor statements are vendor claims.