BlogPHP2Shell Exploitation: How Secure.com Can Protect YouRead more
Agentic SOC comparison

Secure.com vs SOC Jedi.AI

SOC Jedi.AI has a thin public record, which makes an honest comparison harder than usual. This page says what can be checked, marks what cannot, and treats missing evidence as missing rather than as a mark against the product.

Last reviewed: October 2026

  • Human approved
  • Above your stack
  • Live in days
At a glance
Both compete on

Applying AI agents to security operations work that a small team cannot staff around the clock.

Secure.com fits when

You want published capability detail and approval controls you can inspect before you buy.

SOC Jedi.AI fits when

You have seen a demo that fits and you are comfortable buying on what you tested yourself.

Executive summary

The short version

Little of SOC Jedi.AI's capability is documented publicly. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so most cells here need checking.

Key finding

The research found SOC Jedi.AI mainly through review and directory listings rather than through product documentation, funding announcements or technical material. That puts it in a different position from the rest of this comparison set. It does not mean the product is weak. It means a buyer cannot verify much before a demo, so the burden of proof shifts onto what you test yourself. Secure.com's side of this page is specific on purpose, including the parts that are early access or not supported, because that is the fair way to compare against a vendor whose public record is thin. Take every competitor cell here as a question to ask rather than a finding.

The decision rule

If you can run a hands on test and judge it yourself, do that and ignore both marketing pages. If you need documented capability and approval controls before you buy, Secure.com publishes more.

For the record

What this page does not claim

  • That SOC Jedi.AI cannot do the things it does not publish.

    The research found limited public material, and that is a gap in evidence rather than a finding about the product.

  • That public documentation is the same as product quality.

    It is not, and a strong demo should outweigh a thin website.

  • 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.

Where each one fits

Two different answers to the same pressure

This comparison is unusual. One side has published capability detail in depth, the other has very little in public. That shapes how a careful buyer should run the evaluation.

Choose Secure.com if

  • You need capability, limits and approval controls written down before procurement will look at it.
  • Your work spans cloud posture, application risk and offensive validation as well as the SOC.
  • An auditor will ask who approved each consequential action and expect a record.
  • You want a defined proof pattern with failure criteria agreed on day one.

Choose SOC Jedi.AI if

  • You have run a hands on test that fits your workflow and you trust what you saw.
  • Your buying process does not depend on published documentation or analyst coverage.
  • Pricing or commercial terms came back better for your situation.
  • 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Prove, then widen

    Compare against the baseline against the criteria you set. Add a second teammate only once the first has earned it.

What the research found

When the public record runs out, shift the proof to your own environment

Most pages in this series compare two documented products. This one cannot, because the research surfaced little beyond directory and review listings. The responsible move is to say so rather than fill the gap with assumptions in Secure.com's favour. For a buyer, the practical answer is to stop reading vendor pages, including this one, and build an evaluation on your own alerts with a baseline captured first. Ask both vendors the same questions about scope, approval, audit and what happens when the AI is wrong, and compare the answers rather than the websites.

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 SOC Jedi.AI is stronger today

  • A thin public record says nothing about product quality. Several good products market quietly and win on demos.

  • A smaller vendor will often be more flexible on commercial terms and more responsive on feature requests.

  • If a hands on test already fits your workflow, that evidence outweighs anything on this page.

What Secure.com adds

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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

Before you start

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.

Side by side

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. SOC Jedi.AI — agentic SOC capability comparison (2026).

CapabilitySecure.com (SOC Teammate)SOC Jedi.AI
Alert triage and investigationSOC teammate enriches, reaches a verdict with a confidence level and writes the analyst facing narrative. 33 capabilities catalogued.Described as an AI assisted SOC product. Investigation depth not established in public material.
Approval and authorityScope, permission, approval, escalation and audit set per action, with a kill switch.No public material found on approval or authority controls.
AuditabilityEvidence, reasoning, actions, approvals and outcomes are preserved.Not established in public material.
Offensive validationRed teammate runs 51 real offensive tools inside rules of engagement that fail closed. Early access.Not established in public material.
Cloud, code and complianceRead only cloud scanning with computed attack paths, 52 frameworks available for mapping, ISO 27001 and SOC 2 live with findings. AppSec early access.Not established in public material.
IntegrationsJira or Asana for ticketing, Slack for approval. A published inventory is not available yet, so no number is given.Not enumerated in public material.

By deployment

Secure.com vs. SOC Jedi.AI — deployment & operating model (2026).

DimensionSecure.com (SOC Teammate)SOC Jedi.AI
Where it runsCloud only. Nothing installs on your premises. On premises and air gapped estates are not supported.Not established in public material.
What it needs to startAn AWS estate and a read only role you create. Azure guidance is in progress. Google Cloud is not offered yet.Not established in public material.
Multi tenant service usePer tenant separation exists in the platform. Managed and advisory services are not quotable today.Not established in public material.
Data ownershipEvidence rests in open industry formats, readable and exportable. Direct query from your own tools is not available yet.Not established in public material.

By use case

Secure.com vs. SOC Jedi.AI — use case fit (2026).

Use caseSecure.com (SOC Teammate)SOC Jedi.AI
A SOC drowning in alertsStrong fit. Start with the SOC teammate alone.Likely the core use case. Confirm in a hands on test.
Cloud posture and attack pathsStrong fit. Read only scanning with attack paths on the shared map.Not established in public material.
Documented procurement reviewCapability, limits and governance are written down, including what is early access.Limited public material to review before a demo.
Ordering fixes by real exploitabilityRed teammate proves what is reachable, then defensive teammates harden it. Early access.Not established in public material.

Your team sets the rules. AI teammates do the work. Every consequential action is approved, explained and audited.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does this page say so little about the competitor?
Because the research found little to say. Rather than guess, the cells are marked for checking. Writing confident claims about a product with a thin public record would make this page less useful, not more.
Does a thin website mean a weak product?
No. Plenty of capable products market quietly and win on hands on evaluation. Treat the gap as a reason to test carefully, not as a reason to rule them out.
How should we evaluate when public detail is missing?
Baseline your current numbers, then run both products on the same window of your own alerts. Ask both the same questions about scope, approval, audit and what happens when the AI gets it wrong.
What does Secure.com publish that helps here?
Capability by capability detail including what is live, what is early access and what is not supported at all, plus how scope, approval, escalation and audit work on each consequential action.
What will Secure.com not do?
Endpoint protection, user behavior analytics, OT and ICS environments, GRC assessment as a product, and on premises or air gapped deployment. AWS is the minimum estate today.

Start with
one teammate

Pick the function that hurts most. Prove it on your own environment, then decide what comes next.

Competitor information reflects SOC Jedi.AI'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 SOC Jedi.AI. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

More comparisons

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.