CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR vs Tines
CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR is no-code workflow automation inside the Falcon platform, with Charlotte Agentic SOAR beside it. Tines is a no-code workflow platform with a Cases add-on and an AI SOC page. The rubric reads CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR as partial and Tines as not documented on approval, rollback and blast radius, from pages read 2026-11-03.
2.13points apart
The difference that decides it
On approval, rollback and blast radius, Tines says agents allow autonomous workflow activity and states no approval step, rollback or scope limit; CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR says autonomy can be set per workflow, from human approval to fully autonomous (vendor claim), without stated rollback or scope limits. crowdstrike.com, read
8criteria
Rubric side by side
| Criterion | Weight | CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR | Tines | Gap, first minus second |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Native containment coverage (0 and 22 of 25 actions) | 25 | 2.0 | 8.6 | -6.6 |
| Published time-to-contain evidence with method | 15 | 3.5 | 3.0 | +0.5 |
| Approval, rollback and blast-radius controls documented | 15 | 4.0 | 3.5 | +0.5 |
| Explanation and audit trail | 15 | 3.5 | 5.0 | -1.5 |
| Integration depth documented | 10 | 4.0 | 6.5 | -2.5 |
| Detection-to-response coupling | 8 | 6.5 | 6.5 | level |
| Pricing transparency | 6 | 3.0 | 5.5 | -2.5 |
| Deployment and data handling | 6 | 4.0 | 4.0 | level |
| Total | 100 | 3.49 | 5.62 | 2.13 |
Full reasons and sources for every score are on the profiles of CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR and Tines.
4.0 : 3.5approval score each
Approval and rollback controls
CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR. Release says agents act "under analyst command" and analysts set boundaries; no approval workflow is described. crowdstrike.com, read
Tines. The product page says Agents enable "autonomous workflow activity and user interaction" but states no approval step, rollback or scope limit. tines.com, read
0 : 22actions of 25
Containment coverage by domain
| Domain | CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR | Tines |
|---|---|---|
| EDR | 0 of 6 | 6 of 6 |
| Identity | 0 of 5 | 5 of 5 |
| 0 of 5 | 4 of 5 | |
| Cloud | 0 of 5 | 4 of 5 |
| Network | 0 of 4 | 3 of 4 |
| All five | 0 of 25 | 22 of 25 |
Published time to contain: CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR, no published figure; Tines, no published figure.
5buyer types
Verdict by buyer type
- regulated financial
- CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR has the stronger published case on approval and audit: it says autonomy is set per workflow and every action is logged, both vendor claims. Tines states neither an approval step nor an audit log on the pages read.
- lean team
- Tines is easier to size up before a call: it publishes a free edition with 3 live workflows. CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR publishes no price for Fusion and bundles Next-Gen SIEM into Falcon tiers.
- MSSP
- Neither CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR nor Tines states MSSP terms on the pages read. Ask both for multitenant approval settings and per-client audit exports.
- Microsoft estate
- Both name Microsoft pieces. CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR lists Microsoft Defender as the first third-party EDR supported by Next-Gen SIEM; Tines lists Microsoft and Microsoft Teams in its story library.
- CrowdStrike estate
- Both name CrowdStrike pieces. CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR runs inside the Falcon platform and sits beside Charlotte Agentic SOAR; Tines lists CrowdStrike in its story library.
When to pick each
Pick CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR when approval controls must be readable in the docs, because it says autonomy can be set per workflow, from human approval to fully autonomous (vendor claim), without stated rollback or scope limits.
Pick Tines when connector count and breadth matter most, because it shows 521 products as integrations in its product search, without action-level detail.
Read dates are on each source link. See also CrowdStrike Falcon Fusion SOAR alternatives and Tines alternatives, or the buyer-type rankings.