In our comparison of Endpoint Protector 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.
For most businesses, Endpoint Protector is a lifesaver when it comes to managing USB access and averting data leaks. It's a game-changer because we can now readily ban or allow USBs based on individual needs. Even yet, there are still certain license nuances that need to be resolved. The incompatibility with FIPS 140-2 is the largest disappointment. It would be an unbeatable combination of data security if they could create their own FIPS 140-2 USBs or even apply policies to these high-security devices.
Easy to implement
Licensing issues, Missing feature
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.
For most businesses, Endpoint Protector is a lifesaver when it comes to managing USB access and averting data leaks. It's a game-changer because we can now readily ban or allow USBs based on individual needs. Even yet, there are still certain license nuances that need to be resolved. The incompatibility with FIPS 140-2 is the largest disappointment. It would be an unbeatable combination of data security if they could create their own FIPS 140-2 USBs or even apply policies to these high-security devices.
Easy to implement
Licensing issues, Missing feature
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.
For most businesses, Endpoint Protector is a lifesaver when it comes to managing USB access and averting data leaks. It's a game-changer because we can now readily ban or allow USBs based on individual needs. Even yet, there are still certain license nuances that need to be resolved. The incompatibility with FIPS 140-2 is the largest disappointment. It would be an unbeatable combination of data security if they could create their own FIPS 140-2 USBs or even apply policies to these high-security devices.
Easy to implement
Licensing issues, Missing feature
For most businesses, Endpoint Protector is a lifesaver when it comes to managing USB access and averting data leaks. It's a game-changer because we can now readily ban or allow USBs based on individual needs. Even yet, there are still certain license nuances that need to be resolved. The incompatibility with FIPS 140-2 is the largest disappointment. It would be an unbeatable combination of data security if they could create their own FIPS 140-2 USBs or even apply policies to these high-security devices.
Easy to implement
Licensing issues, Missing feature
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 Endpoint Protector vs. ThreatConnect, Endpoint Protector has 10 user reviews and ThreatConnect has 2. The average star rating for Endpoint Protector is 4.7 while ThreatConnect has an average rating of 3.5. Endpoint Protector has more positive reviews than ThreatConnect. Comparing Endpoint Protector vs. ThreatConnect reviews, Endpoint Protector has stronger overall reviews.
Endpoint Protector 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 Endpoint Protector vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect offers more of the most popular features and tools than Endpoint Protector.
In our pricing comparison of Endpoint Protector 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 Endpoint Protector vs. ThreatConnect shows that ThreatConnect scores higher in usability for ease of use, meets requirements, learning curve, ease of admin. Endpoint Protector scores higher in setup & support, quality of support, but ThreatConnect has the best scores overall for system usability.
Get your personalized recommendations now.
