Mate Security vs Tines
Mate Security describes itself as an agentic security operations platform. Tines is a no-code workflow platform with a Cases add-on and an AI SOC page. They split on approval, rollback and blast radius, where the rubric reads Mate Security as partial and Tines as not documented on the pages read on 2026-11-03.
0.74points apart
The difference that decides it
On approval, rollback and blast radius, Mate Security names three modes, Recommend only, Supervised and Auto-run, and scores each action on confidence, precision and reversibility (vendor claim), with no per-action documentation or rollback mechanics, while Tines says agents allow autonomous workflow activity and states no approval step, rollback or scope limit. mate.security, read
8criteria
Rubric side by side
| Criterion | Weight | Mate Security | 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 | 4.0 | 3.0 | +1.0 |
| Approval, rollback and blast-radius controls documented | 15 | 7.6 | 3.5 | +4.1 |
| Explanation and audit trail | 15 | 7.0 | 5.0 | +2.0 |
| Integration depth documented | 10 | 5.5 | 6.5 | -1.0 |
| Detection-to-response coupling | 8 | 5.0 | 6.5 | -1.5 |
| Pricing transparency | 6 | 5.5 | 5.5 | level |
| Deployment and data handling | 6 | 5.0 | 4.0 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100 | 4.87 | 5.62 | 0.74 |
Full reasons and sources for every score are on the profiles of Mate Security and Tines.
7.6 : 3.5approval score each
Approval and rollback controls
Mate Security. Platform page names Recommend only, Supervised ("Risky changes still ask") and Auto-run, scores each action on confidence, precision and reversibility, and returns a category to Supervised on drift; there is no per-action doc, rollback mechanics or scope term on the pages read. mate.security, 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 | Mate Security | 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: Mate Security, no published figure; Tines, no published figure.
5buyer types
Verdict by buyer type
- regulated financial
- Mate Security has the stronger published case on approval and audit: it names three autonomy modes and Decision Traces, both vendor claims without export detail. 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. Mate Security publishes no price and says it starts in shadow mode on real alerts.
- MSSP
- Only Mate Security states anything for MSSPs: it quotes Water-IT, an MSSP, on serving any stack from one platform (vendor claim). Tines states no MSSP terms on the pages read.
- Microsoft estate
- Both name Microsoft pieces. Mate Security names Microsoft Defender among its tool examples, without a connector list; Tines lists Microsoft and Microsoft Teams in its story library.
- CrowdStrike estate
- Both name CrowdStrike pieces. Mate Security names CrowdStrike among its tool examples and was selected for the 2026 CrowdStrike, AWS and NVIDIA startup accelerator (announced 2026-01-05); Tines lists CrowdStrike in its story library.
When to pick each
Pick Mate Security when approval controls must be readable in the docs, because it names three modes, Recommend only, Supervised and Auto-run, and scores each action on confidence, precision and reversibility (vendor claim), with no per-action documentation or rollback mechanics.
Pick Tines when detection and response should arrive in one product, because it accepts automated webhook notifications and does not mention a SIEM.
Read dates are on each source link. See also Mate Security alternatives and Tines alternatives, or the buyer-type rankings.