Hunters vs Mate Security
Hunters totals 3.44 and Mate Security totals 3.98 on the 10 point detection-as-code rubric (sources read 2026-11-03 and 2026-11-04). Mate Security leads by 0.54 points. The pair turns on testing: Hunters describes it only in part, or as a vendor claim, and Mate Security publishes nothing on it. Mate Security ranks eleventh of fourteen on the proposed scores.
The difference that decides this pair
The largest weighted gap on the rubric is rule health: Mate Security scores 6.0 against 3.5 for Hunters, which is 0.45 of the 10 point total.
For testing, Hunters offers a Test logic step on a custom detector over a chosen timeframe and no unit test format, whereas Mate Security publishes no testing method for the detections it writes. docs.hunters.ai read 2026-11-03 mate.security read 2026-11-03
Rubric side by side
Hunters totals 3.44 and Mate Security totals 3.98 out of 10.
Rubric criteria for Hunters and Mate Security, scores out of 10. A plus marks a criterion where Mate Security scores higher, a minus where Hunters does.
| Marker | Criterion | Weight | Hunters | Mate Security |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rule languages and conversion paths | 15 | 3.0 | 3.0 | |
| Git-native workflow and CI/CD | 18 | 3.0 | 3.0 | |
| - | Testing | 15 | 4.0 | 3.0 |
| + | Coverage analytics | 12 | 4.0 | 6.0 |
| + | Rule health | 18 | 3.5 | 6.0 |
| Versioning and rollback | 8 | 3.0 | 3.0 | |
| Content library size and freshness | 8 | 4.0 | 4.0 | |
| Pricing transparency | 6 | 3.0 | 3.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 3.44 | 3.98 |
The 33 capabilities as a diff
Read it as a diff from Hunters to Mate Security: 7 of 33 rows differ. A plus marks a row where Mate Security documents more (1 row), a minus a row where Hunters documents more (6 rows). Rows with no marker match.
Capability rows for Hunters and Mate Security, grouped. Changed rows are shaded and carry a marker.
| Marker | Capability | Hunters | Mate Security |
|---|---|---|---|
| Languages | |||
| Sigma native | not documented | not documented | |
| Sigma conversion | not documented | not documented | |
| YARA-L | not documented | not documented | |
| SPL | not documented | not documented | |
| KQL | not documented | not documented | |
| EQL or ES|QL | not documented | not documented | |
| Python | not documented | not documented | |
| Hunters documents more | Visual builder | partial | not documented |
| YARA | not documented | not documented | |
| Lucene or KQL-like | not documented | not documented | |
| Source control and CI | |||
| Git sync | not documented | not documented | |
| PR deploy | not documented | not documented | |
| CLI | not documented | not documented | |
| Rule API | not documented | not documented | |
| CI examples | not documented | not documented | |
| Env promotion | not documented | not documented | |
| Testing | |||
| Unit tests | not documented | not documented | |
| Hunters documents more | Replay | documented | not documented |
| Synthetic events | not documented | not documented | |
| Backtest reports | not documented | not documented | |
| Test coverage | not documented | not documented | |
| Coverage analytics | |||
| Hunters documents more | ATT&CK map | documented | partial |
| Hunters documents more | Gap view | documented | partial |
| Hunters documents more | Data sources | partial | not documented |
| Log source health | partial | partial | |
| Rule health | |||
| Noisy rules | partial | partial | |
| Mate Security documents more | Broken rules | not documented | partial |
| Field drift | not documented | not documented | |
| Rule cost | not documented | not documented | |
| Lifecycle | partial | partial | |
| Library | |||
| Library count | partial | partial | |
| Community | not documented | not documented | |
| Hunters documents more | Cadence | partial | not documented |
documentedpartialnot documented
Sources for the rows that differ
- Visual builder (Hunters documents more). Hunters: partial, 'Create a custom detector': guided Filter and Group By detector modes with 'Test logic'; not described as no-code docs.hunters.ai read 2026-11-03. Mate Security: not documented, Product pages read do not name this feature; no documentation portal was readable mate.security read 2026-11-03.
- Replay (Hunters documents more). Hunters: documented, 'Test logic': choose a timeframe and view samples of events that would generate leads docs.hunters.ai read 2026-11-03. Mate Security: not documented, Product pages read do not name this feature; no documentation portal was readable mate.security read 2026-11-03.
- ATT&CK map (Hunters documents more). Hunters: documented, 'Threat Coverage' map on MITRE ATT&CK v14; detectors counted per technique docs.hunters.ai read 2026-11-03. Mate Security: partial, Platform page: 'Detection coverage scales across the MITRE ATT&CK Framework' (claim, no per-rule mapping shown) mate.security read 2026-11-03.
- Gap view (Hunters documents more). Hunters: documented, Threat Coverage map: gray technique means 'currently not covered' docs.hunters.ai read 2026-11-03. Mate Security: partial, 'Cut the noise, turn blind spots into detections'; 'Maximal Coverage'; no gap view described mate.security read 2026-11-03.
- Data sources (Hunters documents more). Hunters: partial, Detector list shows data sources per detector; gray cells can reflect missing telemetry docs.hunters.ai read 2026-11-03. Mate Security: not documented, Product pages read do not name this feature; no documentation portal was readable mate.security read 2026-11-03.
- Broken rules (Mate Security documents more). Hunters: not documented, No page read for this platform names this feature docs.hunters.ai read 2026-11-03. Mate Security: partial, Homepage use case 'Detection Engineering: Tuning, health & coverage'; health mechanics not described mate.security read 2026-11-03.
- Cadence (Hunters documents more). Hunters: partial, 'continuously growing list'; no cadence docs.hunters.ai read 2026-11-03. Mate Security: not documented, Product pages read do not name this feature; no documentation portal was readable mate.security read 2026-11-03.
Verdict by buyer type
Which of the two fits each kind of team.
| Buyer | Verdict |
|---|---|
| a team starting from scratch with Sigma | Neither Hunters nor Mate Security documents a path for this buyer, so it does not separate them. |
| Microsoft Sentinel estate | Neither Hunters nor Mate Security documents a path for this buyer, so it does not separate them. |
| Elastic estate | Neither Hunters nor Mate Security documents a path for this buyer, so it does not separate them. |
When to pick each
Hunters: Pick Hunters when testing is the deciding need: it offers a Test logic step on a custom detector over a chosen timeframe and no unit test format. It also leads on coverage analytics.
Mate Security: Pick Mate Security when rule health matters more to you than testing, where Hunters documents more: it says detections are tuned or deprecated from investigation outcomes (vendor claim) and publishes no definitions or thresholds.
Profiles: Hunters, Mate Security. Alternatives: to Hunters, to Mate Security.