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

Exabeam vs Google Security Operations 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 Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
AI-SOC (1st), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st)
Exabeam
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
10th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (15th), User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (1st), Security Incident Response (6th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (10th), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (11th)
Google Security Operations
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
14th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (28th), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Torq is 3.6%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Exabeam is 3.1%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Google Security Operations is 3.5%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Torq3.6%
Exabeam3.1%
Google Security Operations3.5%
Other89.8%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

AD
Solutions Architect at ProArch
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.
reviewer2265966 - PeerSpot reviewer
Enterprise Account Manager South at a outsourcing company with 201-500 employees
Advanced analytics have transformed our threat detection and streamlined incident investigations
I would appreciate seeing additional dashboards in Exabeam Fusion SIEM or perhaps more options or the ability to customize them further. While we can customize them currently, there may be additional options available. I value the outcomes navigator because it matches the log piece to the use cases, which is helpful. The correlation rules are excellent. I am interested in whether there are additional threat intelligence feeds available that we could use, whether we can integrate our own, or if we could ingest different ones.
CK
Technical Lead at a transportation company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Simplified detection rules and SOAR workflows have improved compliance-focused operations
One improvement I am looking for is silent log source monitoring. If some feed or some host went offline or was not pulling any logs into Google Security Operations, I would want better visibility. Silent host monitoring would make a significant difference because it is very hard to track which host went down, and there are many false positives as a result. I think there is a lot of room for scalability improvements, particularly in the integration of third-party applications. Currently, I have to write a script and use a cloud run function to pull logs. If there were direct ingestion by simply providing an API key and some sort of client certificate, it would be much easier.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Torq's unified platform approach to AI, SOAR, automation, and case management is superior compared to my experience managing multiple point solutions."
"Using that one piece of AI, we auto-closed 511 cases in quarter four alone."
"We have seen fewer failures of automations from the time Torq came into the picture, we've had a more streamlined process of handling incidents, and at the same time, we've learned to embed the AI into our incident types, and that is how it has helped us in the automation."
"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."
"Any request that comes in, regardless of how complex it is, I can accomplish it with Torq."
"What I appreciate most about Torq is that it is an essential part of our system."
"According to positive outcomes, Torq reduced manual work and made incident response more efficient."
"Almost four or five hours of work is now completed in four or five minutes."
"Exabeam includes machine learning features and out-of-the-box rules that we rely on."
"The way it can connect with AWS is very useful, and the integrations are pretty good."
"The solution has great technology, it's a very user-friendly product and a very comprehensive technology, the security on offer is very good, and cost-wise, compared to other technology, it's affordable."
"I have seen a return on investment with Exabeam Fusion SIEM, and it is worth the money."
"The platform is not extremely expensive compared to its direct competitors; I would rate its pricing around six out of ten."
"The Exabeam SIEM has a user friendly UI interface."
"The solution's automation capabilities are great."
"The ThreatHunter in Advanced Analytics is the most valuable. It helps analyze compromised assets and provides analysis for any entity within my client's environment."
"Google SecOps is extremely useful for threat detection and hunting."
"The valuable parts of Google Security Operations include how easy it is to write parsers or detection rules, and it is well-advanced in the analytical part."
"The most valuable feature of Siemplify is the playbooks that can be created."
"The playbooks feature in Siemplify is crucial for automation. We've utilized both standard and custom integrations with other security operation solutions, enhancing our flexibility. The user interface is generally straightforward, although recent changes may require some adjustment and Siemplify's integrations and capabilities offer potential support for various compliance requirements."
"Overall, Google SecOps is a very useful service for security operations."
"Google Security Operations helps meet all the important regulatory compliance across all verticals."
"Without hyperbole, I have never, in my entire career, encountered a vendor or a vendor community as awesome as Siemplify. Siemplify and the Siemplify Community quite literally made it possible for our SOC to increase almost five-fold in our number of clients and number of analysts and to go from a Monday to Friday 9-5 shop to a 24/7 shop all in the span of under a year and a half and all while continually adding capabilities and improving the services we offer to our clients."
 

Cons

"The initial deployment of Torq was not easy."
"I wish Torq's AI assistant for building templated workflows from scratch worked better; when you start with a blank slate, asking AI to help you build or template the workflow out does not go well."
"We have MCP that we are working with our cloud security platform, and we wanted to connect this MCP to the case management."
"If Torq could enhance its AI features, it would benefit customers significantly by making the platform even more user-friendly."
"The workflow and execution-based charges seem misleading as this was not discussed initially, and creating additional workflows to achieve basic functionalities raises costs significantly, which disadvantages customers."
"Regarding stability, I have noticed some lagging, crashing, and downtime, which is one of my largest gripes."
"Even now, we have workflows that are in production that use AI steps and I get different results, making it unusable to some degree."
"Additionally, the documentation for Torq is not very clear. Most of the information is presented in videos, which are not ideal for reading; there are mostly paragraphs and other text-based content."
"I would say the pricing for Exabeam Fusion SIEM is not cost prohibitive, but it was a little more than I initially thought."
"The solution's reporting and dashboarding could be improved."
"They need to focus on more of the MITRE ATT&CK Framework and coverage. They claim they cover about 70 to 80%. I'm not sure if it's really quite that much, however."
"We had a large volume right from the beginning and they weren't quite prepared for that. That's something that they should think about when it comes to customers that have a large volume to start off with."
"We still have questions surrounding hardware deployment."
"Exabeam should be a bit faster, especially in loading and vulnerability scanning."
"Exabeam needs to improve its adaptive nature towards rules and its capability to understand the entire client environment faster."
"The initial setup of Exabeam Fusion SIEM is complex because it needs to integrate with the SIEM solution, but after this is complete it is straightforward."
"Building the playbooks could be easier and the integration could improve. It is a difficult process, such as what API connections need to be made."
"We often encounter minor issues that could be improved, but we maintain communication with the developers and submit feature requests. Recently, I requested enhancements such as improved search functionality within playbooks and expanded options for exporting case data."
"The main improvement could be in the accuracy and detail provided in threat descriptions."
"I can give customer service a rating of six because it is very hard sometimes to keep up with the support."
"I'm inclined to say that I'd love to see some Machine Learning capabilities integrated into the platform, however, I just attended a demo this morning where Siemplify gave a sneak peek into some Machine Learning capabilities that they are currently developing and have roadmapped for release soon."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Exabeam Fusion SIEM's pricing is reasonable."
"The platform is not extremely expensive compared to its direct competitors; I would rate its pricing around six out of ten."
"They have a great model for pricing that can be based either on user count or gigabits per day."
"There is an annual license required to use Exabeam Fusion SIEM. The price of the solution should be reduced."
"Exabeam is not a cheap solution."
"The solution is expensive."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
7%
University
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise9
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Large Enterprise3
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Torq?
The only thing is more out-of-the-box integrations. Torq already has a lot of supported integrations and adding new o...
What is your primary use case for Torq?
For Torq, first of all, it's a hyperautomation and AI assistant usage. Our EDR SentinelOne is integrated in Torq and ...
What advice do you have for others considering Torq?
I think I have told everything about Torq that I can share at this stage, but I am still in the process of learning t...
What are the biggest differences between Securonix UEBA, Exabeam, and IBM QRadar?
It mostly depends on your use-cases and environment. Exabeam and Securonix have a stronger UEBA feature set, friendli...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Exabeam Fusion SIEM?
I would say the pricing for Exabeam Fusion SIEM is not cost prohibitive, but it was a little more than I initially th...
What needs improvement with Exabeam Fusion SIEM?
I would appreciate seeing additional dashboards in Exabeam Fusion SIEM or perhaps more options or the ability to cust...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Siemplify?
The pricing for Google SecOps and Microsoft Sentinel is almost the same, with no significant differences.
What needs improvement with Siemplify?
A potential area of improvement for Google Security Operations could be cost. I think Google has already started deve...
What is your primary use case for Siemplify?
Google Security Operations is the main tool that my clients use for the security operations of their companies.
 

Also Known As

No data available
No data available
Siemplify ThreatNexus
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Hulu, ADP, Safeway, BBCN Bank
FedEx Mondelez Intenrational Check Point Trustwave Atos Cyberint Bae Systems Crowe Longwall Security Telefonica Nordea HCL
Find out what your peers are saying about Exabeam vs. Google Security Operations and other solutions. Updated: July 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.