Mate Security
Mate Security scores 3.98 of 10, tenth of the 12 profiled and eleventh of 14 scored. Coverage and rule health reach 6.0, both from its own platform page with no definitions. Languages, git and CI, testing, versioning and pricing score 3.0 because nothing is published. 4 of the other 13 matrix platforms score higher on rule health.
- Rubric total
- 3.98 of 10, eleventh of 14 scored, tenth of 12 profiled
- Matrix score
- 3.5 of 33 (0 documented, 7 partial, 26 not documented)
- Rule health
- 0 documented, 3 partial of 5 matrix rule-health columns
- Ownership
- Independent company. Series A announced 2026-07-28 with Insight Partners, Team8, Canaan Partners and M12. No acquisition, merger or rebrand found on the Mate newsroom or blog. mate.security read 2026-11-03
- Website
- mate.security
What Mate Security is
Mate Security is an Israeli startup selling an AI agent platform for security operations. It calls its category Agentic Cyber Defense (Mate's term, mate.security, read 2026-11-03). Detection engineering is one of eight use cases on the home page, described as tuning, health and coverage. The platform page names an Adaptive Detection Engineering Library and says detections are created, tuned or deprecated from investigation outcomes (vendor claims). It names no rule language.
Mate announced a Series A on 2026-07-28, reported as 35M USD (Mate newsroom, read 2026-11-03), after a 15.5M USD seed in November 2025. On this rubric it is tenth of the 12 profiled and eleventh of 14 scored. Coverage and rule health reach 6.0 each, from vendor claims. Languages, git and CI, testing, versioning and pricing are 3.0 because nothing is published. Panther, Elastic Security, Google Security Operations and Sekoia.io score higher than Mate on the rule-health columns of the matrix. The angle worth watching is agents tuning rules from case outcomes, and this page records what is claimed and what is not yet shown.
Vendor description: Agentic security operations platform. AI agents investigate alerts, hunt, write and tune detections and take response actions, using a graph of organisational context (the Security Context Graph) and structured investigation procedures (Gamebooks). Mate calls the category Agentic Cyber Defense. mate.security read 2026-11-03 vendor claim
Mate Security ranks where the evidence puts it: eleventh of 14 scored and tenth of 12 profiled. Its numbers on accuracy, auto-closure and coverage are vendor claims with an evidence grade of C, and this page does not repeat them as fact. It sits in band D with CardinalOps (Cribl): totals within 0.25 are a band, not a ladder.
How Mate Security scores on the rubric
3.98 of 10 across eight weighted criteria. Each score has its reason and the page it was read from. The rubric explains the bands.
Mate Security on the eight rubric criteria. Part = weight times score over 100; the parts sum to the total.
| Criterion | Weight | Score | Status | Reason and source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rule languages and conversion paths | 15 | 3.0 | not documented | The platform page does not say which rule languages Mate's agents write; the May 2026 blog mentions Sigma only as a general practice. vendor claim mate.security read 2026-11-04 mate.security read 2026-11-04 |
| Git-native workflow and CI/CD | 18 | 3.0 | not documented | No repo sync, pull-request flow, CLI or API is documented; the blog says it does not say whether Mate uses Git. vendor claim mate.security read 2026-11-04 |
| Testing | 15 | 3.0 | not documented | No testing method for Mate-written detections is published. vendor claim mate.security read 2026-11-04 |
| Coverage analytics | 12 | 6.0 | partial | Detection Library shows coverage bars by ATT&CK tactic (vendor page); tactic level only, no technique gap view described. vendor claim mate.security read 2026-11-04 |
| Rule health | 18 | 6.0 | partial | Library lists severity, health, status and agreement rate per detection, and detections are tuned or deprecated from investigation outcomes (vendor claim); no definitions, thresholds, field drift or performance telemetry. vendor claim mate.security read 2026-11-04 |
| Versioning and rollback | 8 | 3.0 | not documented | Version control and rollback for Mate detections are not described. vendor claim mate.security read 2026-11-04 mate.security read 2026-11-04 |
| Content library size and freshness | 8 | 4.0 | not documented | An 'Adaptive Detection Engineering Library' is named; no detection count or freshness date. vendor claim mate.security read 2026-11-04 |
| Pricing transparency | 6 | 3.0 | not documented | No pricing page; calls to action are 'Get a demo'. mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Total, of 10 | 100 | 3.98 | Sum of the eight parts: 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.45 + 0.72 + 1.08 + 0.24 + 0.32 + 0.18 | |
The 33 capabilities for Mate Security
documentedpartialnot documented
Where Mate Security is strong
- The Detection Library shows coverage bars by ATT&CK tactic (vendor claim). It is tactic level only, with no technique gap view described. mate.security read 2026-11-04
- The library lists severity, health, status and agreement rate per detection (vendor claim). No definitions, thresholds, field drift or performance telemetry are given. mate.security read 2026-11-04
- Mate says detections are tuned or deprecated from investigation outcomes (vendor claim). That is an agent-run lifecycle, though no states or handling are documented. mate.security read 2026-11-04
Where Mate Security is behind
- No rule language, repo sync, pull-request flow, CLI or API is documented. The May 2026 detection engineering explainer does not say whether Mate stores detections in git. mate.security read 2026-11-04
- No testing method for Mate-written detections is published, and version control and rollback for them are not described. mate.security read 2026-11-04
- No price is published, and the Adaptive Detection Engineering Library has no count or freshness date. mate.security read 2026-11-04
What only Mate Security publishes
Mate's CD/CR post of 2026-05-18 says a repeated investigation compresses into a detection, so detections come from case outcomes, not a rule repository. mate.security read 2026-11-03
Pricing as published for Mate Security
No pricing page on mate.security. The only public price is an AWS Marketplace 12-month contract line of USD 150,000 for the Mate Enterprise Tier, with the usage unit undefined and private offers available. aws.amazon.com read 2026-11-04
Published prices, read dates beside each.
| Item | Price | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Mate Enterprise Tier, 12-month contract on AWS Marketplace (one usage tier; the unit a tier measures is not defined on the listing; private offers via sales@mate.security) | USD 150,000 per 12 months | aws.amazon.com read 2026-11-04 |
Named customers of Mate Security
Names below are as the source page lists them.
Customers named on public pages. Every name is a vendor claim from the page cited in its row.
| Customer | Source |
|---|---|
| Bridgewater Associates | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Lead Bank | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Fitch Group | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| AlphaSense | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| OCBC | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Merlin Entertainments | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| monday.com | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Freshworks | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Demandbase | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Applied Systems | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Anaplan | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Bright Data | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Koan | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Playtika | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Water-IT | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Unnamed Fortune 500 enterprise (711 SOAR playbooks migrated to 10 Gamebooks) | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
Recent releases and news for Mate Security
- 2026-11-03 Blue City benchmark published on Mate Labs. Simulated-enterprise benchmark for AI defenders; five out-of-the-box agents compared; Mate system not attached. mate.security read 2026-11-03 vendor claim
- 2026-10 CPR framework (Confidence, Precision, Reversibility) described as the gate for autonomous actions. Blog post 2026-10-18 and platform page; webinar 2026-11-17. mate.security read 2026-11-03 vendor claim
- 2026-08-26 Gamebooks launched. Structured investigation procedures; SOAR playbook migration into Gamebooks. SiliconANGLE coverage 2026-08-26 per newsroom; Mate blog post 2026-08-27. mate.security read 2026-11-03 vendor claim
- 2026-07-28 Series A. See facts funding_series_a. mate.security read 2026-11-03 vendor claim
- 2026-05-18 Continuous Detection / Continuous Response (CD/CR) framework published. Detection, investigation and response on one reasoning plane; investigations compress into detections. mate.security read 2026-11-03 vendor claim
- 2026-02-19 Security Context Graph introduced. Graph of 'memories' that agents traverse during investigations. mate.security read 2026-11-03 vendor claim
- 2026-01-15 Listed on AWS Marketplace. Subscribe through existing AWS accounts; counts toward AWS commitments. mate.security read 2026-11-03 vendor claim
- 2026-01-05 Selected for CrowdStrike, AWS and NVIDIA startup accelerator. Eight-week program ending 2026-03-03. mate.security read 2026-11-03 vendor claim
Claims Mate Security makes about itself
Each figure is the vendor's. The evidence grade is defined on the rubric page: A measured by a third party with the method published, B vendor-measured with sample and method, C vendor figure with no method, D figure with no source.
Vendor claims with the evidence grade and who measured.
| Claim | Grade | Measured by | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 98.7 percent accuracy with Mate on 7,200 alerts vendor claim | C | vendor | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| 97 percent false-positive auto-closure vendor claim | C | vendor | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| 6.1x investigation coverage vendor claim | C | vendor | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Frontier models alone reach 69 percent (Gemini 3.8 Flash), 51 percent (GPT-6.1 Sol, subset), 72 percent (Claude Opus 5.5) and 71 percent (Claude Sonnet 5.5) on 7,200 alerts; Mate reaches 98.7 percent vendor claim | C | vendor | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| In testing on real customer cases, generic AI was right about 60 percent of the time; with Mate's context about 97 percent vendor claim | C | vendor | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| 6x more alerts investigated at a Fortune 500 customer vendor claim | C | vendor | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| 80 percent of false positives closed automatically at a Fortune 500 customer vendor claim | C | vendor | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Mate agents close up to 85 percent of false positives vendor claim | C | vendor | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Investigations that took 45 minutes take 45 seconds vendor claim | C | vendor | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| 711 SOAR playbooks migrated to 10 Gamebooks at a Fortune 500 company; migration expected to take 9 months, took 3 weeks vendor claim | C | customer | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Blue City benchmark: five out-of-the-box defenders (three Codex, two Claude Code setups) over 32 scored incidents each; effectiveness 40.2 to 80.1 percent, cost about 0.45 to 4.05 USD per incident vendor claim | B | vendor | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Nearly 100 percent of investigations moved into Mate at AlphaSense, with a measurable drop in TTA and TTR vendor claim | C | customer | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
| Winning nearly 100 percent of the POVs and bake-offs entered; growing ARR by triple digits vendor claim | C | vendor | mate.security read 2026-11-03 |
Shortlist Mate Security when
- You want agents to propose tuning from case outcomes and will ask for storage, test and rollback detail in the demo.
- You already hold your rules in a repository elsewhere and want a layer that suggests changes to them.
- You will hold the vendor claims to the evidence rules on this site and re-score when Mate publishes detail.
Verdict on Mate Security
Tenth of 12 at 3.98, in band D with CardinalOps (Cribl) (3.96): 1.13 behind SOC Prime and 0.52 ahead of Sekoia, with five of eight cells at 3.0 for lack of published detail.
Compare Mate Security
Alternatives to Mate Security. Head-to-head diffs: SOC Prime, Anvilogic, Panther, Sigma and pySigma, Detecteam, Elastic Security, Splunk Enterprise Security (Cisco), Sekoia.io, Hunters, Google Security Operations, Microsoft Sentinel.