Tines vs Torq: No-Code SOAR Pricing, Story vs Workflow Models
The two modern no-code SOARs. Tines publishes a free Community tier; Torq does not. Both target mid-market and enterprise SOCs that prefer drag-and-drop authoring.
Tines is the friendlier path for buyers who want to try the product without a sales call: the free Community tier is genuine and the 3-story cap is enough to validate fit. Torq is the better path if you want an AI-forward roadmap and an explicit SOC overlay (HyperSOC). Both end up quote-only above the free tier.
Side-by-side
Split-screen pricing posture and key facts for each vendor.
Feature heatmap
Coloured cells, not plain checkmarks. Included / Partial / Add-on / Missing.
| Feature | Tines | Torq |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier with full features | ✓ Included | ◐ Partial |
| Published paid pricing | ✗ Missing | ✗ Missing |
| Per-story meter | ✓ Included | ✗ Missing |
| Per-workflow consumption | ✗ Missing | ✓ Included |
| Builder-seat licensing | ✓ Included | ✗ Missing |
| AI / agent overlay | + Add-on | ✓ Included |
| Hybrid / self-host option | + Add-on | ✗ Missing |
Switching cost
Tines and Torq use different mental models (Tines = stories with explicit version control; Torq = workflows + actions in a more pipeline-y view). Migration is essentially a rebuild. For a 30-story Tines deployment, plan 4 to 6 weeks of focused engineering to land equivalent Torq workflows. The integration catalogue overlaps heavily so connector rework is the smaller line item.