We are often asked to pick between the three. Wrong question: they do not play the same position. The right question is which layer your current setup is missing.
This is the sensor. A well-designed installation detects intrusion and signals it — that is all, and it is already useful. Its limits: it does not tell a burglar from a cat, does nothing against a fast intrusion (under 10 minutes in most burglaries), and on an isolated property around the Gulf, the siren disturbs nobody.
This is the filter. An operator receives the signal, checks the cameras, makes calls. But the centre is hundreds of kilometres away, and its power stops at the phone call: police attend only on a confirmed offence. Who confirms it, on site, at 3am in February? That is exactly the gap.
This is the only level that puts a human on the ground. Alarm response within minutes transforms both your alarm and your monitoring: an activation leads to a real assessment, a possible police attendance, and damage handled immediately. And human presence — patrols, random passes, a marked vehicle — is the only genuinely deterrent element upstream: a property that looks watched drops off target lists before any attempt is made.
One regulatory point to finish: alarm response and attendance are regulated activities, reserved for companies authorised by CNAPS with agents holding the professional card. A gardener or a neighbour who "drops by" has neither the legal framework, nor the insurance, nor the reflexes.
See also — All advice
Send us what you already have (alarm, cameras, contracts): we will tell you what is missing — and what is superfluous.
Request an audit