Every security leader recognises that a Security Operations Center (SOC) is central to detecting, investigating and responding to cyber threats. However, once the decision is made to invest in a SOC capability, organisations face an equally consequential strategic choice: build and operate a SOC in-house, or outsource it to a specialist provider?
This decision shapes your total cost of ownership (TCO), risk exposure, compliance posture, operational agility, and long-term scalability.
A SOC ingests telemetry from across your network, cloud and endpoints; analysts correlate and triage alerts; and incident response teams contain and mitigate attacks. The overarching goal remains unchanged whether in-house or outsourced: detect threats early and respond effectively.
But the model you choose affects how you achieve that goal, when you achieve it, and at what cost and risk.
An in-house SOC is staffed, managed and operated entirely within your organisation. It gives you maximum control over security policy, monitoring thresholds, escalation workflows and compliance evidence.
Industry estimates show that running an internal SOC with 24×7 coverage comes with significant costs:
Personnel are the largest cost driver. A fully staffed 24×7 SOC typically requires at least 8–12 analysts, engineers and managers to cover shifts effectively. Recruiting and retaining that talent is expensive in tight cybersecurity labour markets.
Independent SOC cost models estimate that security engineers and analysts alone can cost more than $600,000 per year, and when combined with tooling, infrastructure and 24×7 staffing the total annual cost can exceed $1.6 million.
Beyond salaries, internal SOCs must invest in:
SIEM, EDR/XDR and threat intelligence tooling
Infrastructure and data storage
Continuous training and certification
Shift scheduling and administrative overhead
Collectively, these items create significant fixed costs that persist regardless of threat volume.
Building an internal SOC is also a time-intensive project. Organisations often take 6–18 months to recruit staff, deploy tooling and tune operational processes before achieving effective 24×7 coverage.
Strengths
Maximum control over data and policies
Tailored detection rules and business context
Close alignment with sensitive data governance
Limitations
High fixed costs and budget volatility
Talent scarcity and retention challenges
Long time to value
Scalability tied to headcount growth
An outsourced SOC (often delivered as SOC-as-a-Service or via MDR) shifts much of the burden of operations, tooling and staffing to a third-party provider.
Outsourced SOC services are typically priced on a subscription or per-asset basis. For example:
Managed SOC pricing often ranges from about $10 to $20 per asset per month, depending on service scope and requirements.
Some market data points to $25–$50 per monitored device per month as a common range for comprehensive SOC-as-a-Service pricing.
These models translate into predictable operational costs such as:
500 assets × $15 per asset per month = $90,000 annually
1,000 assets × $20 per asset per month = $240,000 annually
This contrasts sharply with internal SOC models that can exceed $1.5 million per year before factoring hidden costs.
Outsourced SOC pricing typically covers:
24×7 monitoring and alert triage
Threat investigation and reporting
Tooling and infrastructure licences
Access to specialised analysts and threat intelligence
Compliance artefacts and reporting
The result is a variable OpEx model with costs that scale with your environment and threat landscape rather than headcount.
Strengths
Lower and more predictable cost base
Rapid time to value (often weeks, not months)
Access to collective threat intelligence and specialist expertise
Easier scalability
Limitations
Less direct control over operations
Dependency on provider SLAs and performance
Potential vendor lock-in risk
Need for strong governance and contractual clarity
Many organisations adopt a hybrid or co-managed SOC model that blends internal control with outsourced capacity:
Internal team retains governance, threat hunting and high-context investigations
Provider handles 24×7 monitoring and Tier-1 alert triage
This combination allows leadership to balance control, cost and operational scale without fully committing to either pure in-house or pure outsourced operations.
In-house SOCs require upfront investment and ongoing maintenance, while outsourced SOCs spread costs over time with predictable billing.
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 frameworks emphasise documented security controls, continuous monitoring and incident response capabilities. Both models can satisfy these requirements—however, the evidence artefacts differ. In-house SOCs produce native logs and internal process records, while outsourced SOCs must reliably provide audit-ready reporting.
Outsourced SOCs typically come with embedded reporting and compliance support, reducing internal audit burden. However, governance leaders should define SLAs that align with regulatory expectations.
Internal SOCs align closely with organisational context and proprietary systems.
Outsourced providers bring breadth of experience and threat visibility across clients.
Mid-sized organisations often benefit from outsourced SOCs because of predictable costs, rapid deployment and operational scale.
Large enterprises with complex regulatory or data sovereignty needs may prefer internal or hybrid models despite higher TCO.
A hybrid SOC can often deliver a strong balance: internal control with outsourced scale.
In a modern security landscape where threats evolve daily and budgets are scrutinised, the decision between building an internal SOC and outsourcing represents a fundamental strategic choice—not simply a financial one.
In-house SOCs offer deep control and context at substantial cost and operational commitment.
Outsourced SOCs provide predictable OpEx, rapid time to value and scalable expertise.
Hybrid models bridge these worlds to align control, cost and capability.
By integrating real cost data—such as multi-million-dollar internal budgets and per-asset subscription pricing—you can engage stakeholders with a grounded, fact-based analysis that supports sustainable security investments.