Secure.com vs ReliaQuest
ReliaQuest ships role based AI agents it calls Agentic Teammates. Secure.com ships AI Teammates too. The shared vocabulary makes it more important, not less, to be precise about what actually differs.
Last reviewed: October 2026
- Human approved
- Above your stack
- Live in days
Putting role based AI agents on security work. Both companies use the word teammate for them.
You want to run it yourself, with approval and audit on every consequential action.
You want a managed service with people behind it and years of delivery history.
The short version
Both companies sell AI teammates. The real split is managed delivery against a product you run, with approval on each action.
This comparison needs a plain statement up front. ReliaQuest announced GreyMatter Agentic Teammates in July 2025, autonomous role based agents covering threat intelligence research, detection engineering and threat hunting. So the teammate idea is not Secure.com's alone and the word will not do any selling here. What differs is delivery and control. ReliaQuest is a managed service with years of history and people behind the platform, and Secure.com cannot match that today because its services are not quotable and no rate card exists. Secure.com is a product you run, where each consequential action carries scope, a named approver, a kill switch and an audit record. Published ReliaQuest material does not describe that per action control, which is the question to ask them.
If you want someone else to run security operations for you, ReliaQuest is built for that. If you want to keep authority in house with an approval record on each action, that is Secure.com.
What this page does not claim
That the teammate model belongs to Secure.com.
ReliaQuest has shipped agents under that name since July 2025 and the word is shared ground.
That Secure.com offers a comparable managed service.
Services are not quotable today and no rate card exists, so no managed parity claim is made.
Any percentage figure for noise reduction or for how much Tier 1 work Secure.com clears.
Those numbers are not published, so they are not used here.
That Secure.com invented governed AI, or that it is alone in offering approval controls.
Several vendors on this list describe governance of their own.
Two different answers to the same pressure
Two companies using the same word for related things. Underneath, one sells a service with people and the other sells a product your team operates.
Choose Secure.com if
- You want to keep security authority in house rather than hand operations to a provider.
- Each consequential action needs scope, a named approver, a kill switch and an audit record.
- You want offensive testing with real tools to decide what defensive work matters first.
- Cloud posture and application risk need owning under the same model as the SOC.
Choose ReliaQuest if
- You want a managed service with people behind it and a long delivery record.
- Your team does not have the capacity to operate a platform, however governed it is.
- Round the clock coverage from a provider is the requirement rather than a product.
- Your estate is not on AWS, which Secure.com needs as a minimum today.
Four phases, and a real chance to fail
Secure.com follows the same pattern every time, copied from a nine week proof with an external customer. Success criteria get written down on day one, and so do failure criteria, because a proof that cannot fail proves nothing.
Baseline first
Measure your world before anything changes. Current volumes, current handling time, current backlog. Without a baseline there is nothing to compare against later.
Connect two sources
A read only cloud role plus one alert source is enough to begin. Your team keeps control of the role and can revoke it at any time.
Run inside scope
One teammate takes one function. Every consequential action carries scope, an approval step, a kill switch and an audit record of who approved what.
Prove, then widen
Compare against the baseline against the criteria you set. Add a second teammate only once the first has earned it.
Shared vocabulary, different businesses underneath
It would be easy to write this page as though Secure.com invented the teammate model, and it would be wrong. ReliaQuest has shipped role based agents under that name since July 2025, and a buyer who has seen both will notice if a vendor pretends otherwise. The honest difference is the business underneath. ReliaQuest sells managed delivery, where the provider takes the work and the accountability. Secure.com sells a product your team runs, where the work moves to AI teammates and authority stays with your people, action by action.
The research scored every vendor on two things. First, how far a tool carries a piece of work, from surfacing information at one end to owning a governed, verified resolution at the other. Second, how much of the security lifecycle it covers, from one narrow job to several domains sharing one context. Most funded players score high on the first axis inside a single function. Secure.com is built to hold the second axis without giving up approval control on the first.
Where ReliaQuest is stronger todayManaged service maturity and delivery history that Secure.com cannot match, since its services are not quotable and no rate card exists.
Role based AI agents shipped under the teammate name since July 2025, so the concept is not unique to Secure.com.
Scale, round the clock coverage and an established enterprise customer base.
Five things that change when the work is governed
These are the parts of the Secure.com model that hold up against every vendor on the comparison list. None of them are claims about who has more AI.
Offense decides what defense fixes
The Red AI Teammate runs 51 real offensive tools inside rules of engagement that fail closed and carry a live kill switch. What it proves exploitable is what the defensive teammates harden first, so the fix list is ordered by what an attacker could actually reach. Red Teaming is early access today.
Approval sits on the action, not on a mode switch
Scope, permission, approval, escalation and audit are set per action rather than as one global autonomy toggle. Teammates see, prioritize and recommend, and execution runs through approvals with a kill switch and a full record. Fully automatic remediation is on the near term roadmap and never goes in a contract.
One function is worth buying on its own
A single teammate owns a function, works from your context and gets sharper from its own prior decisions. You are not buying a roster or waiting on a cross product story to arrive before the first invoice makes sense.
Four teammates, one shared map
SOC, Cloud Security, Red Team and AppSec read the same picture of your environment, so a finding moves between functions without anyone rebuilding context by hand. The second teammate makes the first more useful.
Your data stays portable
Findings and evidence rest in open industry formats that are readable and exportable if you ever leave. Direct query access with your own tools does not exist yet, so that is not offered here.
The honest prerequisites
Secure.com runs in the cloud. Nothing installs on your premises, and on premises or air gapped estates are not supported.
The minimum is an AWS estate and a read only role you create in your own account. Azure setup guidance is in progress and Google Cloud onboarding is not offered yet.
Results get better when you connect your alert sources and your ticketing. Ticketing today means Jira or Asana, and approvals come through Slack.
Endpoint protection, user behavior analytics, OT and ICS environments, and GRC assessment as a product are all outside what Secure.com does.
What each one does today
Secure.com rows state what ships today. Competitor rows come from that vendor's own published material.
By capability
Secure.com vs. ReliaQuest — managed service capability comparison (2026).
| Capability | Secure.com (AI Teammates) | ReliaQuest |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery model | A product your team operates. Managed and advisory services are not quotable today. | Managed service with people behind the platform and an established delivery practice. |
| Role based AI agents | Four teammates and 19 agents across the SOC, cloud posture, offensive testing and application security. | GreyMatter Agentic Teammates covering threat intelligence research, detection engineering and threat hunting. |
| Approval and authority | Scope, permission, approval, escalation and audit set per action, with a kill switch. Slack approval ships today. | Agents are described as autonomous and able to add automated responses. Per action human approval is not described in published material. |
| Threat hunting | On the near term roadmap for the SOC teammate. Not offered as a current capability. | A named threat hunter agent within the teammate set. |
| Offensive validation | Red teammate runs 51 real offensive tools, including internal network and Active Directory post exploitation. Early access. | Offensive validation as a product capability is not established in published material. |
| Cloud posture and attack paths | Read only cloud scanning with computed attack paths ranked by active exploitation. | Cloud telemetry is in scope for the service. Posture assessment as a product not established publicly. |
By deployment
Secure.com vs. ReliaQuest — deployment & operating model (2026).
| Dimension | Secure.com (AI Teammates) | ReliaQuest |
|---|---|---|
| Where it runs | Cloud only. Nothing installs on your premises. On premises and air gapped estates are not supported. | Platform plus managed delivery across customer environments. |
| What it needs to start | An AWS estate and a read only role you create. Azure guidance is in progress. Google Cloud is not offered yet. | Connect your estate to the platform and onboard with the provider's team. |
| Multi tenant service use | Per tenant separation exists in the platform. Managed and advisory services are not quotable today. | Built for multi tenant service delivery at scale. |
| Data ownership | Evidence rests in open industry formats, readable and exportable. Direct query from your own tools is not available yet. | Data handling follows the service agreement. Export terms set contractually. |
By use case
Secure.com vs. ReliaQuest — use case fit (2026).
| Use case | Secure.com (AI Teammates) | ReliaQuest |
|---|---|---|
| No capacity to operate anything | Weaker fit. Services are not quotable today, so this is a product you run. | Strong fit and the reason the business exists. |
| Keeping authority in house | Strong fit. Work moves to teammates, authority stays with your team per action. | Weaker fit by design, since the provider takes the work. |
| Ordering fixes by real exploitability | Red teammate proves what is reachable, then defensive teammates harden it. Early access. | Not established in published material. |
| Round the clock coverage | The SOC teammate works continuously, but there is no staffed service behind it today. | Strong fit, with people on duty. |
Your team sets the rules. AI teammates do the work. Every consequential action is approved, explained and audited.
Frequently Asked Questions
Start with
one teammate
Pick the function that hurts most. Prove it on your own environment, then decide what comes next.
Competitor information reflects ReliaQuest's own published material, checked 29 October 2026. Products change often, so verify before relying on it. Secure.com statements reflect what ships today. Secure.com is not affiliated with ReliaQuest. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
See how Secure.com compares with the rest of your shortlist
Every comparison follows the same structure, so you can weigh what each tool does, how it deploys, and where it fits on equal terms.
- Security platform
Secure.com vs Palo Alto Cortex
Palo Alto Cortex consolidates the SOC onto one enterprise platform. Secure.com adds governed AI Teammates above the stack you already chose.
- Security platform
Secure.com vs TrendAI Vision One
TrendAI Vision One consolidates the security estate onto one platform. Secure.com adds four governed AI Teammates above the stack you own.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs BlinkOps
BlinkOps lets teams build unlimited no-code security agents. Secure.com ships governed teammates that already own their functions.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Bricklayer AI
Bricklayer AI coordinates AI agents for the SOC. Secure.com runs AI Teammates across SOC, cloud, offensive and AppSec, with approval on every action.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs D3 Security
D3 runs a mature agentic SOC you configure. Secure.com ships a function owned out of the box, with offensive proof setting the order of defensive work.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Dropzone AI
Dropzone AI investigates alerts to a verdict. Secure.com runs AI Teammates across SOC, cloud, offensive and AppSec, with approval on every action.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Elastic Security
Elastic Security is a SIEM with an agentic SOC on top. Secure.com adds governed AI Teammates above your data layer, with approval on every action.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Exaforce
Exaforce is a well funded agentic SOC. Secure.com runs AI Teammates across SOC, cloud, offensive and AppSec, with approval on every action.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Intezer
Intezer brings forensic depth to the AI SOC. Secure.com runs AI Teammates across SOC, cloud, offensive and AppSec, with approval on every action.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Prophet Security
Prophet is a funded agentic SOC specialist. Secure.com runs AI Teammates across SOC, cloud, offensive and AppSec, with approval on every action.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Radiant Security
Radiant is a practised adaptive AI SOC specialist. Secure.com adds one approval model and shared map across SOC, cloud, offensive and AppSec work.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs SOC Jedi.AI
SOC Jedi.AI has a thin public record. Secure.com publishes documented capability and approval controls, with a record on each consequential action.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Surf AI
Surf AI is a well funded agentic operations platform for security. Secure.com adds offensive validation and per-action approval across four functions.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Torq
Torq is a scaled automation platform your team builds on. Secure.com ships a function owned from day one, with offensive proof behind the order.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Tuskira
Tuskira is unified threat defense with breach modeling across cloud and endpoints. Secure.com adds offensive validation and approval on each action.
- Cloud security
Secure.com vs ZEST Security
ZEST Security resolves cloud risk with multi agent remediation. Secure.com's Cloud Teammate covers cloud as one of four governed functions.