In our comparison of Coro vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect is the best option with a higher overall Wheelhouse Score. Wheelhouse Score uses a combination of feature and pricing comparison data, average user ratings, and editorial reviews to score software vendors on a scale of 1-10.
N/A
* Vendor does not share prices.
Coro initially appeared to be the ideal option because of how simple it was to set up and use the management interface. But I soon found that its seeming simplicity belied a startling depth and intricacy. My issues were eventually resolved by the multi-layered strategy, although there was a higher learning curve than I had imagined.
Simple to setup, easy to use
None
For a small team, ThreatConnect proved effective in scaling and managing enterprise threat intelligence and threat hunting capabilities. However, as the complexity of Playbook design and integration increased, the software's potential was hindered, preventing the team from fully maximizing its benefits.
ThreatConnect offered the ability to gather, analyze, enhance, and distribute various types of data related to cybersecurity incidents and indicators of compromise across different customer environments. It allowed for tasks such as uploading a domain name, checking it against threat feeds, and enriching the data with additional information like news articles, reports, attribution, and determining the domain's prevalence across multiple client setups.
One of the drawbacks we encountered was the confusion and lack of proper documentation regarding the Playbooks that facilitated enrichment and integration with third-party tools like SIEM. The visual representation of coding concepts, where blocks were connected to one another, was intended to assist non-programmers in developing their capabilities. In reality, a more code-centric approach to Playbook development would have been more beneficial. We found ourselves with numerous questions and minimal guidance on how to address simple problems that could be easily tackled using Python.
Coro is an excellent way to shield employees from phishing and other dangers as well as stop sensitive data from being shared or leaked without authorization. It offers visibility over what sensitive data is shared or departing the company and by whom, and it is simple to set up and operate. Nevertheless, there were some difficulties when using group policy to deploy the agent.
Easy to setup and use, intutive and visibility
Deploying agent through group policy was trouble
Consider this risk management system that offers numerous possibilities for effortless detection of high-risk threats and a platform for record-keeping.
It is convenient for any company to efficiently prioritize potential high-risk issues. Additionally, it simplifies record maintenance, and ThreatConnect facilitates easy threat detection through actionable analysis.
There were no significant issues encountered during the implementation of ThreatConnect, and it even facilitated learning about the tools.
Coro initially appeared to be the ideal option because of how simple it was to set up and use the management interface. But I soon found that its seeming simplicity belied a startling depth and intricacy. My issues were eventually resolved by the multi-layered strategy, although there was a higher learning curve than I had imagined.
Simple to setup, easy to use
None
Coro is an excellent way to shield employees from phishing and other dangers as well as stop sensitive data from being shared or leaked without authorization. It offers visibility over what sensitive data is shared or departing the company and by whom, and it is simple to set up and operate. Nevertheless, there were some difficulties when using group policy to deploy the agent.
Easy to setup and use, intutive and visibility
Deploying agent through group policy was trouble
For a small team, ThreatConnect proved effective in scaling and managing enterprise threat intelligence and threat hunting capabilities. However, as the complexity of Playbook design and integration increased, the software's potential was hindered, preventing the team from fully maximizing its benefits.
ThreatConnect offered the ability to gather, analyze, enhance, and distribute various types of data related to cybersecurity incidents and indicators of compromise across different customer environments. It allowed for tasks such as uploading a domain name, checking it against threat feeds, and enriching the data with additional information like news articles, reports, attribution, and determining the domain's prevalence across multiple client setups.
One of the drawbacks we encountered was the confusion and lack of proper documentation regarding the Playbooks that facilitated enrichment and integration with third-party tools like SIEM. The visual representation of coding concepts, where blocks were connected to one another, was intended to assist non-programmers in developing their capabilities. In reality, a more code-centric approach to Playbook development would have been more beneficial. We found ourselves with numerous questions and minimal guidance on how to address simple problems that could be easily tackled using Python.
Consider this risk management system that offers numerous possibilities for effortless detection of high-risk threats and a platform for record-keeping.
It is convenient for any company to efficiently prioritize potential high-risk issues. Additionally, it simplifies record maintenance, and ThreatConnect facilitates easy threat detection through actionable analysis.
There were no significant issues encountered during the implementation of ThreatConnect, and it even facilitated learning about the tools.
Add suggested to comparison
In our rating and review comparison of Coro vs. ThreatConnect, Coro has 21 user reviews and ThreatConnect has 2. The average star rating for Coro is 4.66 while ThreatConnect has an average rating of 3.5. Coro has more positive reviews than ThreatConnect. Comparing Coro vs. ThreatConnect reviews, Coro has stronger overall reviews.
Coro vs. ThreatConnect both offer a strong set of features and functionality including Cybersecurity Features, Cybersecurity Protection Types, Reporting & Analytics, Workflow Automation, Drag-and-Drop Builders/Designers, Collaboration Tools, Reminders/Alerts, Report Management, Systems/Administrative, Customizable Items, Integration Options, Compliance Accreditations, After-Sales Service. In our feature comparison of Coro vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect offers more of the most popular features and tools than Coro.
In our pricing comparison of Coro vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect's pricing starts at 0/month and is more affordable compared to ThreatConnect's starting cost of 0/month.
Our comparison of Coro vs. ThreatConnect shows that ThreatConnect scores higher in usability for ease of use, learning curve, ease of admin. Coro scores higher in meets requirements, setup & support, quality of support, but ThreatConnect has the best scores overall for system usability.
Get your personalized recommendations now.
