- BFSIBanking, Financial Services & Insurance
- HealthcareComing soon
- ManufacturingComing soon
- Retail & E-CommerceComing soon
Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper
Detection runs forward; intelligence arrives late — Autonomous Threat Sweeper re-hunts your history automatically every time new indicators are published, and tells you when the compromise actually began.
Buy through TechBag
Same software. Better outcome — at a lower cost.
How it’s rated
Full scoreboard ↓Data residency & processing — two different questions
Where data can live
BYO-AWS or BYO-Snowflake
Your own account holds the data lake, in an India region if you choose. ~450 Securonix engineers sit in Bangalore and Pune.
The hard limit
No air gap, ever
The analytics control plane is always Securonix’s cloud. BYO changes where data rests, not who operates the platform.
These are two different obligations and they lead to different vendors. “Data must stay in India” — BYO-Snowflake in an India region can answer that. “Must be air-gapped” — nothing Securonix offers answers it; see LogRhythm SIEM or Elastic Security. Get your compliance team to state which one, in writing, before shortlisting.
Quick answer
The Microsoft platform family
This page covers Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper — the SIEM. The other pillars:
Quick facts
30-second orientation- Product
- Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper (ATS)
- Core function
- Re-hunts history as new intelligence lands
- Trigger
- New detection content from Securonix Threat Labs
- 2025 cadence
- 1,695 curated threat items — ~141/month
- Hunt window
- Typically 6–12 months, often longer
- Key output
- Initial compromise timestamp and progression
- Modes
- IoC and TTP — catches behaviour, not just indicators
- The dependency
- Only sweeps data you actually ingested
- Delivery
- Part of the platform, not a separate meter
- India relevance
- Dated timelines for CERT-In reporting
Understand SIEM economics before you buy it
Most product pages skip this. We start here — so you buy a capability, not a buzzword.
What is it?
Automated retrospective threat hunting. When new intelligence is published, ATS re-searches your historical data for indicators you had no reason to look for at the time — and surfaces when the compromise actually began.
A two-copy SIEM architecture vs Elastic’s — the honest table
What consolidation actually replaces, dimension by dimension.
| Dimension | No / separate AI tool | Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper |
|---|---|---|
| Retention | 90 days hot, then cold archive | 365 days hot, searchable |
| Old data | Restore ticket, then wait | Query it in the same session |
| Detection basis | Rules you wrote in advance | Baselines, and scored deviation |
| Stolen credentials | Nothing malformed to match | Behaviour is wrong, so it scores |
| New intelligence | Someone remembers to hunt | ATS sweeps history automatically |
| Data custody | Vendor's lake, always | BYO-AWS or BYO-Snowflake available |
| Honest caveat | — | No air gap; overage defaults to 120% |
| Best fit | — | Cloud-accepting, insider-risk exposed |
The deployment-freedom answer — for the deepest out-of-the-box content, weigh Splunk (TechBag sells it).
The five pieces of the platform
Vendors love diagrams; buyers need to know what they’re actually operating. Here’s the whole platform, demystified.
Securonix Threat Labs
The research function that tracks emerging threats in public reporting and open research, vets what is investigation-worthy, and converts it into structured detection content. This curation is the engine — ATS is only as good as what feeds it.
IoC and TTP mapping
Maps reported indicators and observed tactics, techniques and procedures onto the specific telemetry fields where they would appear in your data. Without this translation layer, published intelligence is prose; with it, it is an executable hunt.
Automated sweep engine
When new detections deploy, ATS retroactively searches current and long-term historical data for matches, without an analyst initiating it. This automation is what distinguishes ATS from a threat-intelligence feed you still have to act on.
Historical data window
Sweeps typically span six to twelve months or longer, resting on the platform's 365 days of hot data. The window defines the product's reach: a compromise older than your retention, or in telemetry you filtered before ingestion, is beyond it.
Compromise timeline
Where a sweep matches, it surfaces initial compromise timestamps and threat progression automatically. This is the output that matters for incident response and regulatory reporting, both of which turn on establishing when rather than merely whether.
One workspace where people meet, make, and share — work moving in one place, not emailed between tools.
Twelve capabilities. Draft, analyse, automate.
Sentinel collects, correlates and stores security telemetry — and the tier each table lands in is what sets your bill. Here are the five pieces that matter. Part of Defender XDR, managed in one portal, with Security Copilot AI.
Curated threat tracking
Threat Labs vets emerging threats from public reporting into structured detection content.
Historical data access
Draws on the platform's 365 days of hot data as the substrate for retrospective search.
IoC field mapping
Translates published indicators onto the telemetry fields where they would actually appear.
Technique mapping
Converts observed tactics and techniques into hunt logic, not just atomic indicators.
Automatic retro-hunt
Re-searches history whenever new detection content deploys, with no analyst trigger.
New-threat coverage
Applies newly published intelligence to data collected before that intelligence existed.
Initial compromise dating
Surfaces when the intrusion actually began, not when it was noticed.
Threat progression
Reconstructs what followed initial compromise across the retained window.
Sustained coverage
Maintains a continuous intelligence rhythm rather than periodic manual hunts.
Retrospective finding
Raises findings against historical matches for investigation and response.
Impact assessment
Establishes which assets and accounts were implicated over the affected period.
Incident evidence
Provides the dated timeline that incident reporting and regulatory notification require.
Watch Microsoft Defender in action
Endpoint protection, XDR and Security Copilot.
Hunting the Unknown: AI-Powered Analytics
Why hunting the unknown needs history.
Threat Hunting at Scale: Turning Intelligence into Action
Turning published intelligence into a hunt.
Securonix Unified Defense SIEM Overview Demo
The platform ATS runs inside.
Want a live, India-context walkthrough for your environment?
Book a guided demo →AI works best where the work already happens.
Here’s what genuinely sets Elastic Security apart (and where Splunk or Sentinel may fit better).
Detection runs forward; intelligence arrives late
This asymmetry is the whole reason ATS exists, and it is rarely stated as directly as it should be. Your detection stack watches for what it knows about today. But the knowledge is always behind the attack. A campaign runs for weeks or months before a researcher identifies it, longer before indicators are published, longer still before your platform has content for them. Every day of that lag is a day your monitoring was blind to a specific, real, then-active threat — and crucially, your logs recorded the activity anyway. The evidence sat there, unsearched, because nobody had a reason to search for it. When the report finally lands, the honest question is not 'will we detect this going forward' but 'were we already hit'. Answering that requires going backwards through history with knowledge you did not have at the time. That is a fundamentally different operation from real-time detection, almost no platform automates it, and teams that attempt it manually manage it sporadically at best.
It attacks dwell time where dwell time actually lives
The industry talks about mean time to detect as though the clock starts when an alert fires. For the breaches that damage organisations most, it starts far earlier and nobody is watching it. Intrusions that persist for months do so not because the telemetry was missing but because nothing prompted anyone to look. The compromise was recorded and unexamined. ATS shortens that interval by a different mechanism than faster alerting: it re-examines the past every time the industry learns something new. In practice this means an organisation can discover a compromise weeks or months after the fact but still far sooner than it would have — typically when the intrusion becomes visible through its consequences, which is the worst possible way to find out. For Indian organisations working to CERT-In incident-reporting expectations, that difference is material: a sweep that establishes when an intrusion began produces a defensible report, where discovery-by-consequence produces an admission of ignorance.
The manual alternative does not survive contact with a real SOC
Every security team knows they should hunt retrospectively when new intelligence lands. Almost none do it consistently, and the reason is arithmetic rather than discipline. Across 2025, ATS tracked and analysed 1,695 curated emerging-threat items — around 141 per month, sustained. To match that manually a team would need to monitor threat reporting continuously, assess which items warrant action, translate indicators and techniques into queries appropriate to their own schema, run each against months of history, and triage the results. Every month. Forever. Against that, the live alert queue always wins, because live alerts feel urgent and retrospective hunting feels optional right up until the moment it is not. So the work gets deferred, then done in bursts after a major disclosure, then quietly dropped. Automating it changes the economics entirely. The vetting matters as much as the automation — Threat Labs filters the reporting noise so sweeps chase items that are genuinely investigation-worthy.
It answers 'when did this start', which is the expensive question
In incident response, establishing whether you were compromised is the beginning. Establishing when, and what happened between then and now, determines cost, disclosure obligation and remediation scope. Without a dated timeline, an organisation faces the worst version of every decision: not knowing how far back to look means assuming the worst, which means rotating every credential, rebuilding more systems than necessary, and notifying more broadly than the facts may require. ATS surfaces initial compromise timestamps and threat progression automatically when a sweep matches, converting an open-ended investigation into a bounded one. Knowing an intrusion began on a specific date and touched a specific set of accounts lets you scope remediation to reality rather than to fear. That precision has direct financial value in response effort avoided, and direct regulatory value where notification duties depend on established facts.
The honest caveat — it can only sweep what you kept
Two limitations, and the first is easy to miss until it costs you. ATS can only search data you actually retained. Securonix meters on GB ingested per day, which creates real pressure to filter telemetry before it becomes billable — sensible cost control, and the Data Pipeline Manager exists to enable it. But every source you filter out is a source ATS can never sweep. If you drop a log type in year one to save on ingestion, and in year two new intelligence describes a campaign visible only in that telemetry, the retrospective hunt returns nothing — and you will not know it returned nothing for the wrong reason. A blind sweep and a clean sweep look identical from the console. Make filtering decisions with retro-hunting explicitly in mind, and treat identity, endpoint and cloud control-plane data as non-negotiable. Second, it is delivered within the cloud-only platform and inherits that constraint entirely. Third, smaller but real: ATS automates the sweep, not the investigation. A match still requires an analyst.
The honest positioning
ATS is the most genuinely differentiated thing Securonix sells. Most SIEM capabilities have close equivalents across the category; automated intelligence-triggered retrospective hunting largely does not, and competitors offering retro-search generally expect you to initiate it. It matters most to organisations that are plausible targets of campaigns rather than opportunistic attacks — financial services, critical infrastructure, large enterprises, anyone whose threat model includes patient adversaries. It matters least where the realistic threat is commodity malware caught in real time anyway, or where retention is short enough that there is little history to sweep. Be clear about what it is not: not a replacement for real-time detection, not an answer to poor log coverage, and not analyst substitution — it finds candidates, humans investigate them. And it only makes sense as part of the Securonix platform, which brings the cloud-only constraint with it.
The numbers behind the platform
What your Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper rollout looks like
Retention and coverage design
Decide what to ingest with retrospective hunting explicitly in scope, because filtering decisions permanently limit what ATS can ever sweep. Protect identity, endpoint and cloud control-plane telemetry from cost-driven filtering.
Enablement and mapping
Enable ATS across the relevant data and verify IoC and TTP mappings resolve correctly onto your telemetry fields. A mapping that does not match your schema produces silent non-findings, indistinguishable from clean results.
First sweeps and triage
Expect early sweeps to surface historical findings, including some benign or already remediated. Establish who triages retrospective findings and how they rank against live alerts — without that decision they queue behind live work indefinitely.
Continuous coverage
Treat retrospective findings as a standing workstream, not an exception. Review annually whether retention still covers your exposure, and re-examine any pipeline filtering added since — cost tuning quietly erodes sweep coverage.
The review scoreboard
Modelled on Gartner Peer Insights structure. *Counts and breakdowns are illustrative pending verified review collection.
Quick poll — what’s driving your evaluation?
Talk to an advisor“A sweep matched intelligence published in March against activity from the previous November. We would never have gone looking, and it dated the compromise for us.”
“This is the capability I could not replicate with headcount. We tried running retro-hunts manually for a year and managed it maybe twice a quarter.”
“The initial compromise timestamp scoped our remediation. Without it we would have rotated everything and rebuilt twice as much.”
“Valuable, but we learned the hard way that it only searches what you ingested. We had filtered out the exact log source that mattered.”
“Good for our CERT-In reporting. Having a dated timeline rather than an estimate changed the tone of the whole disclosure.”
“It surfaces candidates, it does not investigate them. We needed analyst capacity to act on what it found and had not planned for that.”
“Threat Labs curation is the underrated part. We are not drowning in every indicator ever published, just the ones worth chasing.”
“Most differentiated thing in the platform. Nothing else we evaluated automated the backwards hunt properly.”
Where everyone sits — the grids
Analyst firms bury this view behind paywalls, and G2 retired its Grid. So here’s TechBag’s synthesis of the endpoint-security (EDR/XDR) market — tap any vendor to see why it sits where it does.
TechBag Endpoint-Security (EDR/XDR) Grid
Execution strength vs product vision — the classic market map, minus the paywall.
Leader six consecutive times — the longest current run.
In-App Integration × Estate Breadth
The grid nobody publishes — detection efficacy & agent maturity vs Microsoft-estate fit and TCO.
Retention and behaviour solved; no air-gap answer.
Positions are TechBag’s illustrative synthesis of public review-platform data and vendor documentation — not a reproduction of any analyst graphic. Verify before relying on it.
Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper vs the field
The SIEM field — honest lanes; the edge is deployment freedom and one agent for logs and endpoint. Deepest content and talent pool? Splunk. We say so (and sell it).
| Dimension | Securonix | Exabeam | Splunk Enterprise Security | Microsoft Sentinel | Elastic Security |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | UEBA-led cloud SIEM on a Snowflake lake | The other UEBA-led vendor | The reference SIEM | SIEM for Microsoft estates | Search-engine-native SIEM |
| Pricing axis | GB/day, tiered bands + commitment | Monitored users + sources | Ingest or workload — historically costly | Per GB ingested per day | Subscription tier + resources |
| Hot retention included | 365 days searchable as standard | By agreement | Priced by volume and term | 90 days, then charged | Yours to configure |
| Behavioural analytics | The founding capability | The founding capability | Available, add-on heritage | UEBA included | Entity risk scoring |
| Self-hosted / air-gapped | None — control plane is always their cloud | LogRhythm SIEM, genuinely on-prem | Cloud, on-prem or hybrid | SaaS only, on Azure | Self-managed, even air-gapped |
| Data custody option | BYO-AWS / BYO-Snowflake — your lake, their analytics | Fully self-hosted available | Fully self-hosted available | Microsoft-operated | Fully self-managed |
| Analyst standing (SIEM MQ 2025) | Leader, six consecutive times | Long-running MQ presence | Leader | Leader | Visionary, not Leader |
| Retrospective hunting | ATS — automatic on new intelligence | Manual hunts | Manual hunts, strong search | Manual hunts | Manual hunts |
| AI in the SOC | Sam — priced on measured analyst work | Nova — seven named agents | Cisco AI Assistant | Security Copilot + MCP | Elastic AI Assistant |
| The thing to plan around | Three CEOs in two years; 120% default overage | Two platforms post-merger | Cisco integration reshaping roadmap | Azure portal retires 31 Mar 2027 | You operate it unless you buy Cloud |
| Best fit | Cloud-accepting estates wanting retention solved | On-prem mandates, or user-based economics | Engineers who will build with it | Microsoft-standardised estates | Air-gapped, or existing ELK |
Does Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper fit you?
Honest fit signals — because the fastest way to lose your trust is to pretend one product wins every scenario.
Choose Securonix if…
- ✓You want a year of hot searchable data included rather than negotiated as an upgrade
- ✓Behavioural detection is central to your threat model — insiders and stolen credentials
- ✓You want retrospective hunting automated rather than depending on someone remembering
- ✓Cloud is acceptable, and six consecutive Gartner Leader placements matter to your board
Choose Exabeam if…
- ✓You need genuine self-hosting (LogRhythm SIEM), or your headcount-to-log-volume ratio favours a per-user meter
Choose Splunk if…
- ✓You have engineers who will build with it and want the deepest content and largest talent pool
Choose Microsoft Sentinel if…
- ✓Your estate is Microsoft — first-party logs ingest free and SIEM shares the Defender queue
Choose Elastic Security if…
- ✓You need air-gapped deployment, which no Securonix configuration can provide
Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper is one of 30 SIEM & log management products TechBag carries. The SIEM & Log Management guide narrows them to a shortlist and shows the reasoning. →
How much of your volume belongs in the cheap tiers?
Securonix meters on GB per day, and the lever you actually control is Data Pipeline Manager: one entitlement flexes across three tiers — Analytics at 1.0×, Investigation at 0.5×, Basic at 0.25×. Route firewall noise, verbose DEBUG logging and duplicated sources to the cheaper tiers and your effective capacity rises substantially. Do this classification before you sign, not during onboarding — it is much harder to renegotiate a band downward later. Illustrative rates; Securonix is quote-only.
One warning that matters more than the saving: Autonomous Threat Sweeper can only re-hunt data you actually ingested. Every source you filter out to control this bill is a source no future sweep can reach — and a blind sweep looks exactly like a clean one. Protect identity, endpoint and cloud control-plane telemetry from cost-driven filtering. Illustrative only; Securonix is quote-only.
Three ways to consume it
ATS is part of the Unified Defense platform rather than a separate line, so there is no additional meter to negotiate. The cost conversation it does create is subtler and more important: ATS can only sweep telemetry you actually ingested, and Securonix bills on GB per day — so every source you filter to control the bill is a source no future sweep can reach. A sweep that finds nothing because the data was never collected looks exactly like a sweep that finds nothing because you are clean. Make filtering decisions with retro-hunting in scope. TechBag helps you decide what to protect, and quotes in INR with GST.
Part of the platform
Not a separate purchase
- Triggered automatically by new Threat Labs content
- Sweeps 6–12 months of history, often longer
- Surfaces the initial compromise timestamp
What makes it work
The dependency
- Retention you can actually re-interrogate
- A compromise older than your window is invisible
- Sweeps reach only the sources you chose to ingest
The tension to manage
Read this twice
- GB/day metering pushes you to filter telemetry
- Every filtered source is one ATS can never sweep
- A blind sweep and a clean sweep look identical
Buy it for less — TechBag pricing beats list
Whatever the list prices above, TechBag negotiates a significantly better deal — with GST-compliant INR invoicing and local support. Ask us for your discounted quote.
Get an India-ready quote
Tell us your requirements and current tools — we’ll model it against what you spend today.
The 8 questions to ask every SIEM vendor
Take this into your next vendor call — including ours.
Which log sources have you filtered out, and would a sweep miss a campaign hiding in them?
Does your hot window cover a realistic dwell time for your threat model?
Is cloud acceptable, given ATS is only available within the SaaS platform?
Have IoC and TTP mappings been validated against your ACTUAL telemetry schema?
Who investigates a retrospective finding, and how is it prioritised against live alerts?
Do you have analyst time for findings, given ATS automates the sweep but not the investigation?
Can a dated compromise timeline feed your CERT-In notification process?
How will you stop ingestion cost-cutting from silently eroding sweep coverage?
Questions buyers ask
Ready to evaluate Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper?
Find out what you already run, work out which tier you actually need above the free one, or get an honest Elastic-vs-Splunk comparison — in INR/GST.
Stats, ratings, review counts and pricing are illustrative and sourced from public materials; verify before purchase.