Will AI replace Security Guards?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 14 official task statements scored for Security Guards (United States, SOC 33-9032), 8% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 13 out of 100 (range 11–19, band: minimal). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Security Guards” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Answer telephone calls to take messages, answer questions, and provide information during non-business hours or when switchboard is closed” (64/100, high); “Write reports of daily activities and irregularities, such as equipment or property damage, theft, presence of unauthorized persons, or unusual occurrences” (51/100, partial); “Monitor and adjust controls that regulate building systems, such as air conditioning, furnace, or boiler” (38/100, low). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Security Guards” stay human?

About 84% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Respond to medical emergencies by administering basic first aid or by obtaining assistance from paramedics” (0/100, minimal); “Lock doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings” (0/100, minimal); “Escort or drive motor vehicle to transport individuals to specified locations or to provide personal protection” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Security Guards” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 8% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 84% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Security Guards calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 14 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

US dataswitch to UK

Security Guards

locking doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings, circulating among visitors, patrons or employees to preserve order and protect property and monitoring and authorizing entrance and departure of employees. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: locking doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 8%
changing shape: 8%
staying human: 84%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 13 out of 100 (11–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 14 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for security guards is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

What shifts is answering telephone calls to take messages: the paper around the work, not the work.

Your week, as this page understands it

Guard, patrol, or monitor premises to prevent theft, violence, or infractions of rules. May operate x-ray and metal detector equipment. The job title says “security guards”. The real job is the part underneath: locking doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But security guards is not one task. It is 14 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is locking doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 8%
changing shape: 8%
staying human: 84%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

1 task

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Answering telephone calls to take messages
This is reading one thing and writing another: telephone calls in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Answer telephone calls to take messages, answer questions, and provide information during non-business hours or when switchboard is closed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Taking messages and answering routine questions by phone is already handled well by automated call systems.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

1 task

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Writing reports of daily activities and irregularities
The software now makes the first pass at reports of daily activities, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Write reports of daily activities and irregularities, such as equipment or property damage, theft, presence of unauthorized persons, or unusual occurrences.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 51 out of 100 (44–58 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Once the guard supplies what happened, writing up a clear daily or incident report is straightforward for software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Staying human

12 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Locking doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings
This work happens in the physical world: doors, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Lock doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Locking physical doors and gates needs someone there to turn the key, so software cannot do it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Monitoring and authorizing entrance and departure of employees
This work happens in the physical world: entrance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Monitor and authorize entrance and departure of employees, visitors, and other persons to guard against theft and maintain security of premises.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Checking people in and out is done standing at the entrance, even where badge readers help.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Circulating among visitors, patrons or employees to preserve order and protect property
This work happens in the physical world: visitors, patrons or employees, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Circulate among visitors, patrons, or employees to preserve order and protect property.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Moving among people to keep order works because a person is visibly there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Calling police or fire departments in cases of emergency
This work happens in the physical world: police, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Call police or fire departments in cases of emergency, such as fire or presence of unauthorized persons.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Placing the emergency call is simple, but noticing the fire or intruder usually means being on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Answering alarms and investigating disturbances
This work happens in the physical world: alarms, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Answer alarms and investigate disturbances.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Someone has to go to the alarm and look; that trip is the whole job here.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Patrolling industrial or commercial premises to prevent and detect signs of intrusion and ensure security of doors
This work happens in the physical world: industrial, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Patrol industrial or commercial premises to prevent and detect signs of intrusion and ensure security of doors, windows, and gates.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Patrolling a site means walking it in person; the presence itself is the protection.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Warning persons of rule infractions or violations
This work happens in the physical world: persons of rule infractions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Warn persons of rule infractions or violations, and apprehend or evict violators from premises, using force when necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Warning, removing or restraining someone requires a person physically present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Responding to medical emergencies by administering basic first aid or by obtaining assistance from paramedics
This work happens in the physical world: medical emergencies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Respond to medical emergencies by administering basic first aid or by obtaining assistance from paramedics.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Giving first aid means putting hands on an injured person at the scene.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 4 tasks

Monitoring and adjusting controls that regulate building systems
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: controls, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Monitor and adjust controls that regulate building systems, such as air conditioning, furnace, or boiler.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Heating and cooling settings are increasingly managed from a control screen, though panels often still need a visit.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Inspecting and adjusting security systems
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: security systems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Inspect and adjust security systems, equipment, or machinery to ensure operational use and to detect evidence of tampering.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Checking and adjusting cameras, alarms and machinery means physically reaching the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Operating detecting devices to screen individuals and prevent passage of prohibited articles into restricted areas
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: devices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Operate detecting devices to screen individuals and prevent passage of prohibited articles into restricted areas.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running people and bags through screening equipment requires an operator standing at the checkpoint.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Escorting or driving motor vehicle to transport individuals to specified locations or to provide personal protection
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: motor vehicle, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Escort or drive motor vehicle to transport individuals to specified locations or to provide personal protection.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Escorting or driving someone requires a person in the vehicle or alongside them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $38,020a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
People doing this job: 1,283,470in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: telephone calls in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: answering telephone calls to take messages and writing reports of daily activities and irregularities. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where doors get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: locking doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 8% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 8% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 84% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 14 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Answering telephone calls to take messages is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to telephone calls, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding: a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes: ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether doors are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near writing reports of daily activities and irregularities. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here

You did not come here for a career change and I am not selling you one. But one road out of here is worth knowing about, so here it is with the bill attached.

Security GuardsFirst-Line Supervisors of Security Workers
a year or morematched on shared tasks
You already inspect and adjust security systems, equipment, or machinery to ensure operational use and to…. In that job the same thing shows up as inspect and adjust security equipment to ensure it is operational or to detect evidence…. Take both published task lists together and about 39% of the work in that job that the software is not taking is work you are doing today.
About 39% of it you could do on Monday. The catch is not the work, it is how few of those jobs there are.
The work the two jobs share
- You already do
  “Inspect and adjust security systems, equipment, or machinery to ensure operational use and to detect evidence of tampering.”
  They do
  “Inspect and adjust security equipment to ensure it is operational or to detect evidence of tampering.”
- You already do
  “Lock doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings.”
  They do
  “Secure entrances and exits by locking doors and gates.”
- You already do
  “Call police or fire departments in cases of emergency, such as fire or presence of unauthorized persons.”
  They do
  “Call police or fire departments in cases of emergency, such as fire, bomb threats, and presence of unauthorized persons.”
What you would not already have: Nothing in your task list touches “monitor the behavior of security employees to ensure adherence to quality standards…”, “advise employees in handling problems or resolving complaints from customers, tenants, detainees…” or “explain company policies and procedures to staff using oral or written communication”. That is the part you would be learning from scratch, and it is roughly the 61% of their durable work you do not already hold.
The honest bill
Pay: $55,940 against your $38,020 (OEWS May 2025 (both)).
- The licence gate: Default-closed. This release carries no licence-register snapshot, so I could not check whether that job is regulated, which means I have to assume it might be. Before you spend a penny, look it up on the US Labor Department’s licensed-occupations finder; the free routes below link straight to it. The route is banded a year or more because of that unknown, not in spite of it.
- The entry ticket: Typical entry-level education is published for only ten occupations in this release, and neither this job nor that one is among them. So I cannot tell you whether a qualification stands in the way. Treat that as an open question to settle before you commit, not as a green light.
- What the pay gap is telling you: $55,940 against your $38,020, 47.1% more (OEWS May 2025 (both)). A real difference, not a life-changing one. Take the move for the work, not the raise.
- What you live on meanwhile: Nobody is going to pay you to retrain. This is evenings and weekends alongside the job you already have, for a year or more, and if that is not possible right now then this route is not open right now, which is worth knowing before you start. The free American Job Center service listed below will talk training funding through with you before you pay anyone.
- How many seats there are: About 81,480 of those jobs against 1,283,470 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 6% as many seats. A real door, not a wide one.
- Is the target job itself holding up: First-Line Supervisors of Security Workers scores 30/100 on this site’s own exposure measure (low), with 20% of its tasks in the top band. Employment projections are not published for this occupation in this release, so this is the exposure leg of the check only. It passed, which is the only reason it is here.
How long: A year or more, part-time, alongside the job you have. That band is set by the unchecked licence question and by the 61% of their work you would be learning, not by any one course.
See what AI is doing to first-line supervisors of security workers

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Public Safety Telecommunicators
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already call police or fire departments in cases of emergency, and their equivalent is to receive incoming telephone or alarm system calls regarding emergency and non-emergency police and…. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 102,500 of those jobs against 1,283,470 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 8% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Transit and Railroad Police
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already circulate among visitors, patrons, or employees to preserve order and protect property, and their equivalent is to monitor transit areas and conduct security checks to protect railroad properties, patrons, and…. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $90,230 against your $38,020 is 2.37× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 4% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route. And it is a narrow door: about 4,390 of those jobs against 1,283,470 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 0% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Firefighters
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already respond to medical emergencies by administering basic first aid or by obtaining assistance…, and their equivalent is to administer first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation to injured persons or provide emergency medical…. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 8% of its task weight, across 14 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like locking doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United States figures

The nearest United Kingdom equivalent is Security guards and related occupations. It is a close match rather than an identical one: the two countries draw the boundary of the job in slightly different places.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →close match

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for security guards, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 8% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for security guards. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Nearby moves

The jobs above, as pages you can read the same way as this one. Your job shares its core work with these. That is what the match is, and it is all it is.

First-Line Supervisors of Security Workers →About 39% of it you could do on Monday. The catch is not the work, it is how few of those jobs there are.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for security guards launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for security guards yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for security guards existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for security guards launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Security Guards?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 14 official task statements scored for Security Guards (United States, SOC 33-9032), 8% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 13 out of 100 (range 11–19, band: minimal). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Security Guards” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Answer telephone calls to take messages, answer questions, and provide information during non-business hours or when switchboard is closed” (64/100, high); “Write reports of daily activities and irregularities, such as equipment or property damage, theft, presence of unauthorized persons, or unusual occurrences” (51/100, partial); “Monitor and adjust controls that regulate building systems, such as air conditioning, furnace, or boiler” (38/100, low). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Security Guards” stay human?: About 84% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Respond to medical emergencies by administering basic first aid or by obtaining assistance from paramedics” (0/100, minimal); “Lock doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings” (0/100, minimal); “Escort or drive motor vehicle to transport individuals to specified locations or to provide personal protection” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Security Guards” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 8% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 84% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Security Guards calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 14 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

Worth knowing about these figures

One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: onet-db (im-rt)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
Pay and employment: bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.