Every category where a model named Torq for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
SOAR platforms	Security operations	4%	4 of 49	10%	29	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Torq yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Torq across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	2	0	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	3	2	0	1	6
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1	0	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	4	0	1	5
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	1	0	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	1	1	1	4
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	0	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	2	0	3

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct12 labels1

Paraphrase6 labels1

Comparative23 labels3not counted in share

Budget-constrained8 labelsNone

Scale-constrained10 labels2

Negative16 labels6not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative75 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 of the 13 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“look at Tines or Torq. They make building and modifying workflows accessible to any tier-1 or tier-2 analyst.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · SOAR · comparative prompt · first choice

“API-first/workflow-native platforms (e.g., Tines, Torq) | Easier integration, faster deployment, less lock-in” Kimi K2 · SOAR · negative prompt · first choice

“Many mid-market buyers are better served by no-code automation platforms (Tines, Torq)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · SOAR · scale prompt · first choice

“Shift toward low-code/no-code platforms (such as Tines or Torq)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · SOAR · negative prompt · first choice

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“Premium pricing ($150K–$300K+ typical for mid-market); better suited for larger enterprises” Kimi K2 · SOAR · direct prompt · soft negative

“start at $80K+/yr (quotes for 5–10 users), unsuitable for limited budgets.” Grok 4.1 Fast · SOAR · budget prompt · soft negative

“notoriously expensive, often requiring six-figure annual commitments” Gemini 3.5 Flash · SOAR · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Torq, over the 75 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Torq was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Tines72 of 7521Not in the top three

Splunk SOAR69 of 752Not in the top three

Cortex XSOAR68 of 7516Not in the top three

Microsoft Sentinel37 of 750Not in the top three

Swimlane28 of 751Not in the top three

IBM QRadar SOAR26 of 750Not in the top three

Google Security Operations SOAR21 of 751Not in the top three

FortiSOAR20 of 750Not in the top three

Swimlane Turbine19 of 753Not in the top three

Rapid7 InsightConnect18 of 754Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Torq. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 60 of the 75 answers that named Torq and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

paloaltonetworks.com42

blinkops.com36

gartner.com36

aimultiple.com29

expertinsights.com28

strike48.com25

guptadeepak.com23

comparitech.com22

guideflow.com22

simbian.ai21

284 of the 284 domain citations in answers naming Torq came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/soar-tools-comparison42

blinkops.com/blog/soar-platforms35

gartner.com/reviews/market/security-orchestration-automation-and-response-solutions35

aimultiple.com/top-soar-platforms29

expertinsights.com/network-security/the-top-soar-solutions28

guptadeepak.com/tools/top-5-soar-platforms-202623

comparitech.com/net-admin/best-soar-software22

guideflow.com/blog/soar-software22

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Torq's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Torq, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at torq.io is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.