In our comparison of Digital Guardian 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.
* Vendor does not share prices.
* Vendor does not share prices.
DG primarily addresses endpoint Data Loss Prevention (DLP) and DAR scanning. It helps to protect sensitive data on endpoints, ensuring compliance and preventing data leakage. The product's capabilities in these areas benefit me by providing greater control and security over my data assets.
I appreciate the level of support I have received while using Digital Guardian (DG). The support team has been helpful and responsive, enhancing my experience with the product.
One drawback is the lack of management of DAR (Data at Rest) scanners within the DG Management Console (DGMC). This limitation can be inconvenient when it comes to managing and configuring the scanners.
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.
Digital Guardian addresses issues related to agent communication and provides data loss prevention and enhanced security measures. The DLP process effectively blocks the unauthorized transfer of confidential data, ensuring data protection and reducing the risk of data breaches.
I appreciate that Digital Guardian's Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tool plays a vital role in secure data transmission. It effectively assigns policies to individual users, ensuring data protection.
There is room for improvement in the Helpdesk Support regarding technical aspects. Customized policies for groups of applications or people are currently unavailable. The console's GUI could be more user-friendly.
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.
DG primarily addresses endpoint Data Loss Prevention (DLP) and DAR scanning. It helps to protect sensitive data on endpoints, ensuring compliance and preventing data leakage. The product's capabilities in these areas benefit me by providing greater control and security over my data assets.
I appreciate the level of support I have received while using Digital Guardian (DG). The support team has been helpful and responsive, enhancing my experience with the product.
One drawback is the lack of management of DAR (Data at Rest) scanners within the DG Management Console (DGMC). This limitation can be inconvenient when it comes to managing and configuring the scanners.
Digital Guardian addresses issues related to agent communication and provides data loss prevention and enhanced security measures. The DLP process effectively blocks the unauthorized transfer of confidential data, ensuring data protection and reducing the risk of data breaches.
I appreciate that Digital Guardian's Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tool plays a vital role in secure data transmission. It effectively assigns policies to individual users, ensuring data protection.
There is room for improvement in the Helpdesk Support regarding technical aspects. Customized policies for groups of applications or people are currently unavailable. The console's GUI could be more user-friendly.
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 Digital Guardian vs. ThreatConnect, Digital Guardian has 16 user reviews and ThreatConnect has 2. The average star rating for Digital Guardian is 4.43 while ThreatConnect has an average rating of 3.5. Digital Guardian has more positive reviews than ThreatConnect. Comparing Digital Guardian vs. ThreatConnect reviews, Digital Guardian has stronger overall reviews.
Digital Guardian 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 Digital Guardian vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect offers more of the most popular features and tools than Digital Guardian.
In our pricing comparison of Digital Guardian vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect's pricing starts at N/A/month and is more affordable compared to ThreatConnect's starting cost of N/A/month.
Our comparison of Digital Guardian vs. ThreatConnect shows that ThreatConnect scores higher in usability for ease of use, ease of admin. Digital Guardian scores higher in meets requirements, learning curve, quality of support, but ThreatConnect has the best scores overall for system usability.
Get your personalized recommendations now.
