Mindflow

Name: Mindflow
Brand: Mindflow

AI Native

Automation, made simple.

Est 2021|Valuation $40.5M|Raised $5.4M

LinkedIn 6K|Web traffic 6K|FTEs 44|HQ Paris, Île-de-France, FR

MarketsSecurity Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR)Workflow Automation

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Mindflow vs Tines: Tines has established recognition in security automation; Mindflow differentiates in vendor messaging around hyperautomation and GenAI-assisted workflow creation. Practical selection should focus on workflow authoring UX, governance features, auditability, and integration depth for the buyer's stack. - Mindflow vs Torq: both vendors reference agentic/AI-forward automation approaches; Torq has broader public funding and press visibility in some sources. Buyers should validate actual AI governance controls, logging, and reproducibility of AI-generated automation steps. - Mindflow vs Swimlane / Splunk SOAR / Cortex XSOAR: incumbent SOAR vendors may provide more extensive SOC-tested playbooks, established references, and mature compliance packaging. Mindflow may be of interest to teams seeking a modern UI and GenAI-assisted flow creation, subject to validation of integration depth and compliance needs.

	Mindflow (vendor website)	Tines	Torq
Starting Price	Not publicly clear (enterprise-led; vendor marketplace listing exists)	Public sources indicate a Starter tier (verify with vendor)	Typically contact sales; pricing often enterprise/usage-based (verify with vendor)
Typical users / focus	SecOps/IT/CloudOps teams seeking no-code and GenAI-assisted workflow orchestration (vendor positioning)	Security automation teams seeking a mature workflow product and a broad adoption footprint	Security hyperautomation for teams focused on agentic automation narratives
Noted strengths	Vendor-stated: large operations catalog; natural-language-to-automation features; on-prem relay capabilities	Established presence in security automation and broader recognition in the market	Emphasis on agentic AI for security automation and enterprise orientation
Noted weaknesses / buyer cautions	Limited independent review footprint; pricing transparency gaps; brand confusion in public search results	Costs can scale; pricing/consumption complexity is a commonly noted concern in third-party summaries	Public pricing opacity; buyers should validate governance, costs, and implementation effort

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Mindflow vs Tines: Tines has established recognition in security automation; Mindflow differentiates in vendor messaging around hyperautomation and GenAI-assisted workflow creation. Practical selection should focus on workflow authoring UX, governance features, auditability, and integration depth for the buyer's stack.
Mindflow vs Torq: both vendors reference agentic/AI-forward automation approaches; Torq has broader public funding and press visibility in some sources. Buyers should validate actual AI governance controls, logging, and reproducibility of AI-generated automation steps.
Mindflow vs Swimlane / Splunk SOAR / Cortex XSOAR: incumbent SOAR vendors may provide more extensive SOC-tested playbooks, established references, and mature compliance packaging. Mindflow may be of interest to teams seeking a modern UI and GenAI-assisted flow creation, subject to validation of integration depth and compliance needs.

	Mindflow (vendor website)	Tines	Torq
Starting Price	Not publicly clear (enterprise-led; vendor marketplace listing exists)	Public sources indicate a Starter tier (verify with vendor)	Typically contact sales; pricing often enterprise/usage-based (verify with vendor)
Typical users / focus	SecOps/IT/CloudOps teams seeking no-code and GenAI-assisted workflow orchestration (vendor positioning)	Security automation teams seeking a mature workflow product and a broad adoption footprint	Security hyperautomation for teams focused on agentic automation narratives
Noted strengths	Vendor-stated: large operations catalog; natural-language-to-automation features; on-prem relay capabilities	Established presence in security automation and broader recognition in the market	Emphasis on agentic AI for security automation and enterprise orientation
Noted weaknesses / buyer cautions	Limited independent review footprint; pricing transparency gaps; brand confusion in public search results	Costs can scale; pricing/consumption complexity is a commonly noted concern in third-party summaries	Public pricing opacity; buyers should validate governance, costs, and implementation effort