No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Anvilogic vs Salem Cyber comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Torq
Sponsored
Ranking in AI-SOC
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (4th), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st)
Anvilogic
Ranking in AI-SOC
2nd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (8th)
Salem Cyber
Ranking in AI-SOC
19th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the AI-SOC category, the mindshare of Torq is 7.9%, up from 6.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Anvilogic is 3.0%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Salem Cyber is 2.6%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
AI-SOC Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Torq7.9%
Anvilogic3.0%
Salem Cyber2.6%
Other86.5%
AI-SOC
 

Featured Reviews

AD
Solutions Architect at Swimlane
Automation has streamlined multi-tenant SOC workflows and improves alert handling efficiency
Although the reporting within Torq is not that great, we did ask for many features regarding reporting in Torq, but due to some platform constraints, they could not make the whole dataset available for us to be used in reporting. Except for that, we used some basic reporting. When I used Torq, it was indeed in the early stages of AI capabilities. Only a few customers were allowed to use it, and we were among them. It functioned well as long as we summarized the data properly. If you input garbage, you would get garbage out. Thus, we had to do significant fine-tuning regarding what data context we provided to the AI orchestrator to get meaningful results. In terms of Torq's unified platform approach to AI SOC automation and case management compared to managing multiple point solutions across my security stack, I find it case-centric. The unified view in case management is good since it provides clarity, although there are limitations regarding how many items in case management can be modified at once. Bulk operations are very limited, potentially due to their back-end database or data retrieval processes that can be improved. Regarding improvements for Torq, when we were onboarded, there were aspects we were uncertain about, such as the number of cases that could be generated, what data we could bring in, how many clients we could onboard, and similar concerns. Initially, we also lacked clarity about the number of playbooks or workflows we could build. Different triggers like system triggers, case-based triggers, and others can be employed without restrictions, but when it comes to on-demand and scheduled jobs, there is a limitation based on the subscription and pricing tier that notably caps the number of workflows we can create. No bulk editing across cases was one issue, along with limited filtering related to single grouping constraints. Additionally, the out-of-the-box case templates provided require substantial modifications before they become usable. There is also a feature in the cases for notes that cannot be searched. They are only visible through the UI, which is another area for improvement. The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially. I am not sure if new customers are made aware of this. It seems that workflows revolving around cases hinder functionality outside of case management, as we have many use cases needing on-demand triggers and schedules for functions like reporting or polling devices. Creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers. While they facilitate optimization and scaling, the support received tends to be very basic. Improvements can be made in that area as well.
reviewer2800338 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager, Threat Prevention Engineering at a tech vendor with 5,001-10,000 employees
Modern threat detection has improved coverage and reduced costs but still needs better UX and flexibility
There is room for growth in the product platform; our detection engineers using Anvilogic every day encounter some frustrating UX experience issues where buttons are not logically placed, and workflows are not working as expected. There is also room for growth in integrating the platform with third parties, as we have encountered limitations in what can be executed via API and what is documented. We are a heavy automation integration team, so having this well documented is important for us. The enterprise capabilities within the platform also seem somewhat limited, as we run into limitations in managing detections at scale and making changes to those detections at scale. Especially at an enterprise level, if we need to add enrichment logic to every single detection deployed, it can be quite onerous; we had to develop custom scripts to manage that. Thus, enhancing enterprise-type features for managing the platform at scale rather than clicking through the GUI is important as we continue to grow. Additionally, the AI capabilities have been somewhat unstable and unintuitive to use, which is key for increasing adoption. One other thing is that the detection logic builder today is somewhat limited in flexibility regarding implementing detections, grouping detections together, and handling alerts when they fire. This might be partly due to our need to adjust to a different platform, but flexibility is key for any enterprise platform to meet our unique business requirements. Having the capability to build custom detection logic not tied to a specific structure would be helpful; although a lot can be done, it often requires working with our account team which is time-consuming and less intuitive.
Use Salem Cyber?
Leave a review
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which AI-SOC solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Large Enterprise12
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?
I do not dislike anything about Torq because it has satisfied all of our use cases and requirements. We contacted sup...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
Initially, we were using Slack for small automations, such as creating pipelines or shutting down servers. For exampl...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
I have been working for five years with experience in the IT field. Torq is very good. It manages everything. I would...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Anvilogic?
I am from the technical department, so I do not have details about pricing, setup cost, or licensing, as that was han...
What needs improvement with Anvilogic?
I chose a nine because, while Anvilogic is excellent, there is room for improvement in terms of the false-positive re...
What is your primary use case for Anvilogic?
Anvilogic serves as my cybersecurity company's platform that provides detection, SIEM support, and SOC investigation,...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Torq, Anvilogic, Dropzone AI and others in AI-SOC. Updated: May 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.