In-House SOC or Outsourcing – Which Strategy to Choose?

Ruslan Rakhmetov, Security Vision

The global shortage of cybersecurity professionals is approaching 4.8 million, and the average time to fill a mid-level analyst position exceeds six months. In this hostile environment, the leadership of any organization inevitably faces a strategic question: should they build an in-house monitoring and response center (SOC) or outsource these functions (to an MSSP or MDR provider)? This is precisely what we'll discuss in this article. That is precisely what we will discuss in this article: there will be plenty of figures, because we believe that making a well-considered decision is only possible by weighing the risks and consequences.

a) In-House Cybersecurity Centers

b) SOC Providers (MSSPs)

c) Managed response technologies (MDR)

d) Tips and tricks for choosing strategies 

I n-House SOC

Establishing an in-house 24/7 monitoring center is considered the pinnacle of information security process evolution (level 5 in SOC maturity models). Not a single log leaves the organization's perimeter (critically important for defense companies or those with extremely stringent regulatory requirements), and internal analysts possess a profound contextual understanding of business processes (allowing them to distinguish legitimate anomalies from real attacks faster than an external observer). All of this sounds simply wonderful. However, most organizations fail due to fatal flaws in financial modeling and a lack of understanding of the mathematics of 24/7 operations.

Imagine you're managing warehouse security: you've installed monitors, hired a security director and a dozen guards who work shifts 24/7. They know exactly which employees are allowed in the warehouse at night and which are not.

They work exclusively for you, know every door in the building, and don't share company secrets with anyone. But this is astronomically expensive, as you have to pay for vacations, sick leave, night shifts, and staff turnover. If one guard gets sick and the other quits, security collapses.

Many managers believe that hiring three analysts is enough to cover three 8-hour shifts per day, but the math tells a different story: a standard week consists of 168 hours (7 days, 24 hours each). If one employee works a standard 40-hour workweek, the basic division (168 / 40) yields 4.2 full-time equivalents (FTE) just to cover one position in front of a monitor. And this is just a baseline without the nuances of real life. Analysts take vacations, call in sick, take lunch breaks, and undergo mandatory training. Guaranteeing at least one person in front of screens year-round requires a minimum of 5-6 full-time equivalents, assuming only one analyst per shift, which is an unacceptable single point of failure in a critical situation. Ensuring minimum viable monitoring on the front line with redundancy requires 8 to 12 Level 1 analysts, not counting the SOC manager and Level 2 / L3 specialists for in-depth investigations.

Moreover, analysts working night shifts and weekends require bonuses of 15-30% above their base salary, and statistics show that turnover on night shifts is twice as high as during the day. Other studies indicate that investigation accuracy and attention span drop by 20-30% between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM due to cognitive exhaustion and circadian rhythms. The average tenure of a SOC analyst rarely exceeds 18 months.

Classic outsourcing (MSSP)

Many organizations are turning to managed security service providers (MSSPs), a model that has dominated the market for the past decade and was originally designed to manage large-scale infrastructure.

The key value of an MSSP lies in its cost-effectiveness and breadth of coverage. The provider manages key information security tools (ISS), while the client receives predictable operating expenses (OPEX), typically 3-5 times lower than the cost of maintaining an in-house SOC. This model is ideal for organizations whose primary goal is compliance with regulatory requirements such as PCI DSS, HIPAA, or SOC 2, where continuous monitoring and centralized logging are mandatory audit criteria.

Imagine someone starts breaking down your warehouse door at 3 a.m., the dispatcher sees it on camera, calls you on your cell phone, and says, "We think there are burglars coming. We recommend locking the doors!"

An MSSP dispatcher won't come to your rescue; under this model, you'll have to take action, chase away criminals, and change the locks yourself. In a cyberattack, when every minute counts, by the time you wake up and get to the office, your business will already be destroyed.

The "monitor and alert" formula is the basic paradigm of an MSSP. The provider analyzes the event stream, identifies an anomaly, and sends the client a notification (ticket) with recommendations. Responsibility for making a decision, physically isolating the host, or removing the malicious file remains with the client's internal IT team. In a time-sensitive environment, this time lag becomes critical. Receiving a recommendation from the MSSP at 2:00 AM to "block the compromised account" creates only informational noise if the organization doesn't have an on-call engineer ready to immediately do so.

Managed Detection and Response (MDR)

The limitations of MSSPs have led to the rapid development of the MDR (Managed Detection and According to Gartner forecasts, by 2025, approximately 50% of organizations will implement MDR services, abandoning traditional approaches. MDR is not just a new set of tools; it is a fundamental shift from the "infrastructure management" paradigm to the "business outcome (threat prevention)" paradigm.

A critical advantage of this model is the speed of threat isolation: if ransomware is detected, MDR analysts don't have to wait until Monday morning to coordinate actions. Using EDR technologies (Endpoint Detection and Response), they remotely disconnect the compromised computer from the network, block the malicious process, and suspend the compromised accounts. The client receives a notification that the attack has already been stopped, not that it has just begun.

You give the contractor keys to all the electronic locks in the building and agree on the rules in advance. They don't just monitor the cameras; they actively patrol the premises. If they see a burglar, they don't waste time calling with questions—they remotely lock the doors, isolate the intruder, eliminate the threat, and only send you a report in the morning: "There was an attack last night, we've tied everyone up, your belongings are safe."

But there are also downsides.

First, there's the loss of direct operational control. Delegating authority to automatically block nodes means that a false positive could paralyze a legitimate business process. For example, erroneously isolating a critical database server during the financial close of a quarter could cause damage comparable to a cyberattack. The solution lies in anomaly detection systems (such as Security Vision UEBA, which calculates thresholds based on event "weight") and AI tools (such as SV AI, used to evaluate false positives and provide recommendations on the appropriate course of action).

Secondly, MDR providers often offer a "SOC-in-a-box" approach, insisting on using their own, strictly defined set of technologies. If a company has already invested heavily in specific security systems, integrating them with the provider's platform may prove impossible or require dismantling the old systems. SOAR systems with dynamic playbooks – such as those from Security Vision – could offer a solution.

Third, many services sold under the MDR label are not actually MDR. Due to the popularity of the acronym, over 600 vendors claim to provide MDR, although they often offer only repackaged MSSP services without any real active threat containment capabilities. Here, it's worth looking at the technologies most widely used by SOC providers, and pay attention to those solutions that are more widely represented than their competitors.

Tips and tricks for choosing strategies

Choosing an information security architecture in 2026 doesn't tolerate compromises based on cost (which could still be a downside). Trying to build a cheap in-house SOC by assigning one or two analysts to monitor logs during business hours will inevitably lead to staff burnout, missed critical attacks, and multi-million dollar losses, including catastrophic regulatory fines for missed response times. What needs to be done:

1) Take into account the number of analysts with a reserve (correctly calculate staff units, FTE);

2) Provide for potential personnel drain;

3) Consider more complex rotation schedules. For example, "Southern Swing" (rotation of 4 teams on a 28-day cycle: 7 day shifts, 2 days off, 7 evening shifts, 2 days off, 7 night shifts, 3 days off).

Traditional outsourcing (MSSP) excels at handling compliance, infrastructure management, and basic monitoring, but in a world where attackers can take over a network in 30 minutes, a "monitor and alert" model without the authority to take action leaves businesses vulnerable to a rapidly evolving threat. What to do:

1) Study vendor technologies and select solutions that are capable of "smart" response, adapting to the incident and deviating from basic scenarios;

2) Promote AI solutions: many tasks are solved much faster and more efficiently than by humans, using automation tools and ML models (searching for similarities, analyzing false positives , building attack chains and intruder routes – all of this will make response simpler and more transparent);

3) Calculate the ROI for using part of the information security system internally and part with the provider, so that management is more flexible and costs are distributed between capital and operating expenses.

Strategies and hybrid Co-Managed SOC models, enhanced by autonomous artificial intelligence (Agentic AI), currently represent the most balanced choice for the vast majority of companies. They provide critical response times (measured in minutes), 24/7 coverage, and compliance with stringent cyber insurance requirements , all while maintaining predictable operating costs. However, even in this case, it's important to clearly understand which tasks you entrust to systems and which you leave to humans. Here's what you need to do:

1) Choose ecosystems (or platforms) so that you can decide for yourself which models will be used: maximum transparency and complete control will be useful in the processes;

2) Integrate cloud solutions with internal ones so that you can quickly adapt to any changes (a large base of ready-made connectors is good, but it's better if they all work, and even better when the integration can be done independently without the involvement of vendors and external contractors);

3) Reserve resources for strategic planning, governance, and SGRC processes that, when applied to a SOC, will truly serve the business and protect the most important assets.

Remember, too, that without a clearly defined role and responsibility matrix (RACI) between internal and external personnel, blind spots arise, whereby a critical incident goes uninvestigated because each party believes it is the other's responsibility. We wish you professional teams, effective budgets, flexible implementation of all policies and roles, and a 100% level of security!