Straight answer
Mars Security is stronger on four of seven criteria and Vega on three. Mars Security has the higher weighted figure, 4.47 of 5 to Vega's 3.35, because it is stronger on the four heaviest criteria: data reach, where it names the sources it queries in place, intel-to-detection speed, continuous hunting and time to first value. Vega is stronger on coverage measurement, rule lifecycle and buyer transparency, where its public material is more specific.
Mars Security
4.47 / 5
Stronger on
- Intel to detection
- Continuous hunting
- Data reach
- Time to first value
Vega
3.35 / 5
Stronger on
- ATT&CK coverage
- Rule lifecycle
- Transparency
Criterion by criterion
Mars Security stronger on 4, Vega stronger on 3, level on 0.
Intel to detection weight 20%
Mars Security is stronger
Mars Security 5 / 5Vega 3 / 5
Mars Security: The vendor states intel to detection in minutes; each rule is backtested on 30 days of the customer's own data before it goes live, from advisories such as CISA, Mandiant, Unit 42 and Microsoft Threat Intelligence.
Vega: Hunt findings can be promoted to MITRE-mapped detections on the spot; an intelligence-to-detection workflow is not described.
Continuous hunting weight 20%
Mars Security is stronger
Mars Security 5 / 5Vega 4 / 5
Mars Security: Converts intelligence into behavioral hunts and runs them continuously; hypothesis playbooks were introduced in September 2026.
Vega: Given a hypothesis, it runs the whole hunt across sources on its own and shows each step; a continuous schedule is not stated.
ATT&CK coverage weight 8%
Vega is stronger
Mars Security 2 / 5Vega 4 / 5
Mars Security: Rules are described as ATT&CK-mapped, but we found no public coverage view, heatmap or tactic-level map.
Vega: A security assessment shows real ATT&CK coverage and the gaps.
Rule lifecycle weight 7%
Vega is stronger
Mars Security 3 / 5Vega 4 / 5
Mars Security: Backtesting before go-live is documented; version history, review and CI are not described on public pages.
Vega: Detections live in source control and every change has a diff, an author and an approver; pre-deployment testing is not described.
Data reach weight 25%
Mars Security is stronger
Mars Security 5 / 5Vega 3 / 5
Mars Security: Queries data where it lives and names the sources: CrowdStrike Falcon, Wiz, Splunk, firewall logs, Linux Sysmon, identity providers, AWS telemetry, Snowflake and Databricks, with no ingestion pipeline.
Vega: Queries every source in place with no migration or ingestion, but its connectors page names no platforms.
Transparency weight 5%
Vega is stronger
Mars Security 2 / 5Vega 3 / 5
Mars Security: No public price and no public documentation site; the vendor states deployment in hours, SOC 2 and an AWS Marketplace listing.
Vega: No public price; a public sandbox lets a buyer try the product before a sales call.
Time to first value weight 15%
Mars Security is stronger
Mars Security 5 / 5Vega 3 / 5
Mars Security: States deployment in hours with no data ingestion; SOC 2 and listed on AWS Marketplace.
Vega: Queries data in place; public pages do not name connectors or describe deployment.
Editorial assessment, 1 to 5 per criterion, from public vendor material. It measures fit for turning threat intelligence into hunts and detections on data a team already has. It is not a measure of overall product quality.
Where is Mars Security stronger?
Mars Security starts from intelligence. It converts new advisories into hunts and detections, backtests each rule on 30 days of the customer's own data before it goes live, and runs hunts continuously. It names the sources it queries without ingestion, from CrowdStrike Falcon and Splunk to Snowflake and Databricks.
Where is Vega stronger?
Vega publishes more about what happens around a rule. A security assessment shows ATT&CK coverage and gaps, detections live in source control with a diff, an author and an approver for every change, and a public sandbox lets a buyer try the product. Mars Security's public pages do not show a coverage view or describe versioning and review.
Which should you choose?
Choose Mars Security if
- You want new threat intelligence turned into backtested hunts and detections quickly.
- You want hunts running continuously on the SIEM, EDR, identity, cloud and warehouse data you already have, with no ingestion pipeline.
- You want the query written in each source's own language.
Choose Vega if
- You need to report ATT&CK coverage and gaps from the tool itself.
- Your team wants detections reviewed like code, with an approver on every change.
- You want to try the product in a public sandbox before a sales call.
What does each vendor publish?
| Headquarters | New York |
|---|---|
| Deployment | Vendor states deployment in hours, no data ingestion, no additional detection engineering headcount |
| Security | SOC 2 (vendor press release) |
| Marketplace | AWS Marketplace |
| Rule testing | Each rule backtested against 30 days of the customer's own data before it goes live |
| ATT&CK | ATT&CK-mapped detection rules; no public coverage view |
| Named sources | CrowdStrike Falcon, Wiz, Splunk, firewall logs, Linux Sysmon, identity providers, AWS telemetry, Snowflake, Databricks |
| Pricing | Not published |
Source: marssec.ai · securityboulevard.com · marssec.ai · Reviewed Sep 2026
| Offices | Tel Aviv and New York |
|---|---|
| Data | Federated analytics, no migration, ingestion or egress; connectors not named on the public connectors page |
| ATT&CK | Security assessment shows ATT&CK coverage and gaps; hunt findings become MITRE-mapped detections |
| Rule lifecycle | Source control; every change has a diff, an author and an approver |
| Try before buying | Public sandbox (sandbox.vega.io) |
| Pricing | Not published |
Source: vega.io · vega.io · vega.io · vega.io · vega.io · Reviewed Sep 2026
Editorial assessment · Desk research from public vendor material, last reviewed September 2026
Questions about Mars Security and Vega
Is Mars Security better than Vega?
On our rubric Mars Security is stronger on four criteria and Vega on three. Mars Security is stronger on intel-to-detection speed, continuous hunting, data reach and time to first value; Vega on coverage measurement, rule lifecycle and buyer transparency. Mars Security's weighted figure is higher because its four criteria carry the most weight for this question.
Do both query data in place?
Yes. Mars Security names the sources it queries without ingestion. Vega describes federated analytics with no migration, ingestion or egress, but does not name connectors on its public page.
Why does Mars Security score 2 on coverage measurement?
Its rules are described as ATT&CK-mapped, but we found no public coverage view, heatmap or tactic-level map. A buyer should ask for one in a demo.