In our comparison of Falcon 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.
This system is solving a variety of problems for me, such as covering endpoint/cloud/threat/identity/security and observation with the help of AI and human expertise. This takes away a lot of the perceived oversight of security required by the business and allows us to concentrate on what we do best.
What I like best about Crowdstrike is how easy it is to deploy with the amazing help of their staff. Additionally, it has a very small footprint on resources, and the Falcon Dashboard is incredibly intuitive. The reports generated are of a standard that can be shared with the Exec team and is fully understood.
I cannot think of anything that I dislike about this product.
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.
CrowdStrike is a trustworthy endpoint security solution that offers transparent security and first-rate support, giving users peace of mind. Even without a local interface, CrowdStrike is a great tool for safeguarding your most important information.
Good protection
Interfce that is not local
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.
This system is solving a variety of problems for me, such as covering endpoint/cloud/threat/identity/security and observation with the help of AI and human expertise. This takes away a lot of the perceived oversight of security required by the business and allows us to concentrate on what we do best.
What I like best about Crowdstrike is how easy it is to deploy with the amazing help of their staff. Additionally, it has a very small footprint on resources, and the Falcon Dashboard is incredibly intuitive. The reports generated are of a standard that can be shared with the Exec team and is fully understood.
I cannot think of anything that I dislike about this product.
CrowdStrike is a trustworthy endpoint security solution that offers transparent security and first-rate support, giving users peace of mind. Even without a local interface, CrowdStrike is a great tool for safeguarding your most important information.
Good protection
Interfce that is not local
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 Falcon vs. ThreatConnect, Falcon has 7 user reviews and ThreatConnect has 2. The average star rating for Falcon is 4.71 while ThreatConnect has an average rating of 3.5. Falcon has more positive reviews than ThreatConnect. Comparing Falcon vs. ThreatConnect reviews, Falcon has stronger overall reviews.
Falcon vs. ThreatConnect both offer a strong set of features and functionality including Cybersecurity Features, Cybersecurity Protection Types, Reporting & Analytics, Systems/Administrative, Workflow Automation, Drag-and-Drop Builders/Designers, Collaboration Tools, Reminders/Alerts, Report Management, Customizable Items, Integration Options, Compliance Accreditations, After-Sales Service. In our feature comparison of Falcon vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect offers more of the most popular features and tools than Falcon.
In our pricing comparison of Falcon 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 Falcon vs. ThreatConnect shows that ThreatConnect scores higher in usability for meets requirements, learning curve, ease of admin. Falcon scores higher in ease of use, setup & support, but ThreatConnect has the best scores overall for system usability.
Get your personalized recommendations now.
