Headline figure
2.7
average Technology domain maturity, again the highest
Source: SOC Maturity Report 2026, SOC-CMM® (CC BY-SA 4.0), soc-cmm.com. Average capability & maturity per domain chart and Detailed SOC-CMM scores section.
SOC-CMM domain maturity: 2026 statistics
Domain maturity in the 2026 SOC Maturity Report: Business 2.5, People 2.3, Process 2.3, Technology 2.7 and Services 2.2, interpreted for CISOs.
Executive reading
Technology is again the highest-scoring domain of the SOC maturity model: 2.7 average maturity. Business sits at 2.5, People and Process tie at 2.3 and Services closes at 2.2, with average capabilities of 1.7 (Technology) and 1.6 (Services). All domains are down versus 2025, which the report attributes not to a real regression but to a more representative dataset: a larger share of respondents already uses SOC-CMM for self-assessment, which reduces answer optimism.
What does this mean for your SOC? Tooling investment running ahead of governance, people and services is the global pattern, not the exception. A Technology score of 2.7 with Services at 2.2 describes SOCs buying technology faster than they formalize measurable services. If your SOC fits that profile, the highest-return improvement is usually not another tool but charter, knowledge management and training. An independent SOC-CMM assessment pinpoints that imbalance with per-aspect evidence rather than gut feeling.
Report data
| Metric | Value | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| Business | 2.5 | Average maturity; Charter and stakeholders among the hardest aspects. |
| People | 2.3 | Knowledge management and training remain persistent challenges. |
| Process | 2.3 | Since v2.4 includes log management and automation engineering. |
| Technology | 2.7 / 1.7 | Maturity / capability; leading domain for the second year. |
| Services | 2.2 / 1.6 | Maturity / capability; forensics, CTI and hunting pull it down. |
Analysis and context
Methodology: the figures come from the 2026 SOC Maturity Report, with fieldwork from late January to mid-March 2026, 290 responses received and roughly 200 retained after cleaning. 30% of the maturity dataset comes from trained support partner assessments and 65% from the survey, mostly self-assessment. The report quantifies the effect: self-assessment scores an average of 0.6 maturity points above third-party assessment, across almost all 27 aspects of the model.
At aspect level, the most persistent maturity challenges are not in Technology. The report identifies Customers and stakeholders and Charter (Business domain), Knowledge management and Training & education (People domain), and Forensic analysis, Cyber threat intelligence and Threat hunting (Services domain) as the hardest aspects. In other words: what is hardest to mature is the relationship with the business and the advanced analytical services, not the platform.
Year-over-year comparison requires caution. The across-the-board score decreases between 2025 and 2026 coincide with a changed sample composition and with version 2.4 of the model arriving in late 2025, which moved log management into the Process domain and introduced automation engineering. The report recommends reading multi-year trends before concluding there is a real regression.
What to do with this data
- Do not average domains to hide gaps.
- Prioritize domains that block business decisions.
- Review capability in Technology and Services separately.
- Validate self-assessment against independent measurement before board reporting.
- Tackle charter, knowledge management and training first if you mirror the global pattern.