In our comparison of Onspring 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.
Our risk management procedures have been expedited by the highly scalable, adaptable, and user-friendly wireless GRC platform Onspring, which has also given us a central repository for all of our risk-related data. Although there is room for improvement in terms of content libraries, the platform has met our demands for managing risks in a number of applications.
Scalable, flexible and user friendly
Limited content
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.
Onspring is a feature-rich platform with an advanced API, comprehensive security features, and admin and reporting capabilities. But because of its generic character, it might be less useful for certain jobs, such handling populations, emails, and complicated policies with several cadences. Although our company with over 70 employees uses it for compliance certifications, its restrictions keep us from fully utilizing it for other purposes.
Strong reporting and admin features, modern API , versatile and security features
Requires advanced functions for tasks that should be native to the system
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.
Our risk management procedures have been expedited by the highly scalable, adaptable, and user-friendly wireless GRC platform Onspring, which has also given us a central repository for all of our risk-related data. Although there is room for improvement in terms of content libraries, the platform has met our demands for managing risks in a number of applications.
Scalable, flexible and user friendly
Limited content
Onspring is a feature-rich platform with an advanced API, comprehensive security features, and admin and reporting capabilities. But because of its generic character, it might be less useful for certain jobs, such handling populations, emails, and complicated policies with several cadences. Although our company with over 70 employees uses it for compliance certifications, its restrictions keep us from fully utilizing it for other purposes.
Strong reporting and admin features, modern API , versatile and security features
Requires advanced functions for tasks that should be native to the system
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 Onspring vs. ThreatConnect, Onspring has 18 user reviews and ThreatConnect has 2. The average star rating for Onspring is 4.5 while ThreatConnect has an average rating of 3.5. Onspring has more positive reviews than ThreatConnect. Comparing Onspring vs. ThreatConnect reviews, Onspring has stronger overall reviews.
Onspring 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 Onspring vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect offers more of the most popular features and tools than Onspring.
In our pricing comparison of Onspring 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 Onspring vs. ThreatConnect shows that ThreatConnect scores higher in usability for ease of use, learning curve, ease of admin. Onspring scores higher in meets requirements, setup & support, but ThreatConnect has the best scores overall for system usability.
Get your personalized recommendations now.
