How do you compare SOAR tools for your security team?

Security orchestration, automation and response (SOAR) tools run repeatable response steps across your other security tools. To compare them, ignore feature checklists and test your own three most common playbooks. Judge integrations, approval steps, error handling and audit logs. We do not rank vendors here, and you should be careful of anyone who does.

What does SOAR do?

NIST SP 800-215, the guide to the secure enterprise network, lists SOAR among the network security functions it covers, next to secure web gateways and zero trust network access. In practice, a SOAR tool receives an alert, gathers context from other systems, may take an action such as isolating a device or disabling an account, and records what happened.

The value is consistency and speed on routine work. The risk is that an automated action is wrong and acts at machine speed.

What should you test?

Integrations you actually use. Count the ones for your ticketing, identity, email, endpoint and cloud tools. Check how deep each is: can it read, or also act?

Playbook design. Can an analyst build and change one without a developer? Can you version it and test it before it runs live?

Human approval. Which actions can require a person to approve, and can the rule vary by asset?

Error handling. What happens when an API call fails halfway? A half-finished isolation is worse than none.

Audit trail. Does every automated action record who or what triggered it, with what inputs, and what result? NIST SP 800-61 Revision 3 stresses incident handling that improves over time, which needs those records.

Access of the tool itself. A SOAR platform holds credentials to many systems. Ask how it stores them, how access is limited, and what happens if the platform is compromised.

How do you run a fair comparison?

Constructed example: a team picks three playbooks. First, a phishing report: pull the message, check links, and delete from other mailboxes if malicious. Second, a suspicious login: check the user's recent activity, force a password reset if risky. Third, a vulnerability on a server: open a ticket with the owner and due date. They give every candidate the same sample data and measure two things: how long it takes an analyst to build each one, and what the audit log shows afterward.

They also run one failure test. They switch off the mail API halfway through the first playbook and observe whether the platform stops, retries or leaves a mess.

What are the traps?

Scoring on number of integrations. Scoring on demo polish. Automating before the manual process is written down and agreed. Giving the tool broad rights because it was easier. And automating response actions that need judgment, such as disabling an executive's account, without an approval gate.

When is SOAR not the right step?

If your processes are not written down, automation will only speed up confusion. If your alert volume comes from poor detections, fix the detections first. If you have few repeat incidents, a script and a ticket template may do the job at lower cost. SOAR pays off when you have clear, frequent, low-risk tasks and the staff to maintain playbooks. Be honest about maintenance: integrations break when the tools they connect to change.

How to check or apply this

1. Write down your ten most frequent alert types and how long each takes by hand.
2. Choose three to automate first, preferably ones with clear, safe actions.
3. Give each candidate the same three playbooks and the same test data.
4. Score integration depth, build time, approval options, error handling and audit trail.
5. Run a failure test on each.
6. Review how credentials are stored and how access is limited.
7. Start live with read-only enrichment, add actions one at a time, and keep approval on risky ones.

Quick check

Sources

• NIST SP 800-215, Guide to a Secure Enterprise Network
• NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3, Incident Response Recommendations

Last reviewed: 18 October 2026.