What is Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR)?

SOAR software automates incident response workflows by connecting security tools, executing playbooks, and managing alert triage across a SOC's toolset. It turns the manual steps an analyst takes when responding to an alert into repeatable automated processes that run faster and at higher volume than human-only response.

What are the main Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR) vendors?

Representative vendors include Palo Alto Cortex XSOAR, Tines, Torq, Splunk SOAR. B4 Pro scores the full set.

Security & Compliance · Engineering, IT & AI

Should you build or buy Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR)?

Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR) software automates incident response workflows by connecting security tools, executing playbooks, and managing alert triage across a SOC's full toolset. It turns the manual steps a security analyst takes when responding to an alert — pulling context, running containment actions, notifying stakeholders — into repeatable, automated processes that run faster and at higher volume than human-only response.

The build-vs-buy decision for SOAR turns on how deeply your incident response procedures are coupled to proprietary internal tooling and whether AI-native platforms have compressed the engineering effort enough to make playbook-as-code a practical alternative to a dedicated platform; the specifics of your response complexity and integration requirements decide it.

Domain: Security & Compliance
Function: Engineering, IT & AI
Industries: Cross-industry

Last assessed June 2026 · re-scored quarterly via The Continuum.

Build it, buy it, or bridge?

	Build it	Buy it	Bridge (buy, then extend)
Cost shape	Significant engineering to build and maintain connector libraries and playbook logic	Tines from ~$30K/year; legacy SOAR $50K-$300K+; meaningful range	Buy AI-native platform; extend with custom connectors for proprietary tooling
Time to value	Months to build meaningful playbook coverage for complex environments	Weeks to configure core playbooks on modern AI-native SOAR	Buy for fast initial coverage; build custom extensions for internal tools
Differentiation captured	Playbook logic and response procedures fully owned; no vendor dependency on iteration	Vendor connector library handles tool integrations; procedures are customer-configured	Vendor handles commodity connectors; internal team owns high-specificity playbooks
AI feasibility today	AI-native no-code platforms have lowered the playbook-as-code bar meaningfully	Tines and Torq represent AI-native SOAR where configuration replaces engineering	AI-assisted playbook generation on vendor platform; extend for internal tool gaps
Who it fits	Security teams with tightly coupled proprietary tooling and playbook-as-code capability	Most enterprise SOC teams, particularly legacy SOAR migration candidates	Teams needing fast deployment plus long-term proprietary logic ownership

The B4 call

B4 has a verdict for Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR).

Build, Buy, Bridge, or Beware, with the five-dimension scorecard and the reasoning behind it. Unlock the call, and every other category, with B4 Pro.

Unlock the verdict in B4 Pro →

When building Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR) makes sense

The SOAR playbook is where a build argument lives: incident response procedures, escalation chains, and cross-tool integration logic are genuinely company-specific in ways that generic vendor templates don't fully capture. A security team that can express its response logic clearly in code and wants tight iteration control without vendor dependency has a real case for building playbook automation on top of existing tooling rather than buying a dedicated platform. AI-native no-code platforms like Tines have also lowered the threshold for teams that want something between a full custom build and a traditional SOAR platform — the logic is expressed in configuration rather than proprietary vendor workflow tools, which makes migration less painful if requirements change. The build case gets strongest when your response playbooks are deeply coupled to internal-only systems with no vendor connectors, when security team velocity on playbook iteration is more valuable than deployment speed, or when the playbook logic itself is part of a security posture story you want to own completely.

When buying Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR) makes sense

Buying earns its keep when your team needs to get incident automation running fast without first building and maintaining connector libraries for the dozens of security tools a modern SOC integrates with. Modern AI-native platforms like Tines and Torq have compressed the cost from legacy SOAR platforms like Palo Alto Cortex XSOAR by 2x or more, which changes the buy calculus considerably from where it was five years ago. The connector library argument is real: a SOC team spending engineering time maintaining integrations between SIEM, EDR, threat intel, ticketing, and communication tools is doing work that SOAR vendors have already done. The time-to-containment improvement from running automated playbooks instead of manual response is measurable, and getting there in weeks rather than months is meaningful. Teams evaluating AI-native SOAR should compare Tines and Torq carefully against legacy platforms before assuming the established names represent the current best option.

SOAR platforms live or die on playbook specificity. An organization's incident response procedures, escalation chains, and cross-tool integrations are genuinely proprietary, which is why SOAR has historically been a serious build investment rather than a commodity buy. Buying earns its keep when your team needs to get incident automation running without maintaining connector libraries for dozens of security tools, and when the cost of slower iteration on playbooks is acceptable. Tines and Torq have made the category more accessible, with pricing that can undercut legacy platforms like Palo Alto Cortex XSOAR by 2x or more.

AI-native SOAR is why this decision is live again. Platforms like Torq are collapsing the no-code automation layer to a point where a small team can configure meaningful coverage without a dedicated engineering effort. The build case gets serious when your response playbooks are genuinely complex, tightly coupled to internal tooling, or when ownership of the automation logic itself is part of your security posture story. Teams that can express their response logic clearly and need tight iteration control may find the playbook-as-code path more durable than vendor dependency.

Representative vendors

Palo Alto Cortex XSOARSplunk SOAR and 3 more, scored in B4 Pro

B4 Pro

Get B4's actual call on Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR)

→ B4's call for Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR): Build, Buy, Bridge, or Beware
→ The five-dimension scorecard and the scoring rationale
→ All 5 vendors with pricing and positioning
→ Quarterly re-scores that feed the MCP live, so your agents always query the current call
→ MCP server plus API and SDK access, and CSV/JSON export

Upgrade to B4 Pro

Prefer to read first? The book covers the framework end to end.

Frequently asked

What is Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR)?: SOAR software automates incident response workflows by connecting security tools, executing playbooks, and managing alert triage across a SOC's toolset. It turns the manual steps an analyst takes when responding to an alert into repeatable automated processes that run faster and at higher volume than human-only response.
When does building Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR) make sense?: Building is defensible when response playbooks are deeply coupled to proprietary internal tooling with no vendor connectors, or when your security team wants full iteration control over playbook logic without vendor dependency. AI-native no-code platforms like Tines have also created a middle path that avoids both full custom build and traditional vendor lock-in.
When does buying Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR) make sense?: Buying earns its keep when your team needs fast deployment of incident automation across a broad security toolset without building and maintaining connector libraries. AI-native platforms like Tines and Torq have cut costs significantly versus legacy SOAR, making the buy case stronger than it was at traditional pricing.
What are the main Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR) vendors?: Representative vendors include Palo Alto Cortex XSOAR, Tines, Torq, Splunk SOAR. B4 Pro scores the full set.

The B4 Index scores every software category on two axes, strategic differentiation and AI feasibility, to classify it Build, Buy, Bridge, or Beware. See the full methodology.

More in Security & Compliance

Build or buy Identity & Access Management (IAM)? Build or buy Privileged Access Management (PAM)? Build or buy Single Sign-On (SSO)? Build or buy Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)? Build or buy Data Loss Prevention (DLP)? Build or buy SIEM? Build or buy Endpoint Detection & Response (EDR)? Build or buy Extended Detection & Response (XDR)? Build or buy Next-Gen Firewall (NGFW)? Build or buy Web Application Firewall (WAF)? Build or buy Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB)? Build or buy GRC?

The Build Report

Bi-weekly analysis of software categories through the B4 Framework. What to build, what to buy, and how to use AI to make better decisions for your company.