In our comparison of ThreatConnect vs. XM Cyber, 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 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.
N/A
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.
N/A
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 ThreatConnect vs. XM Cyber, ThreatConnect has 2 user reviews and XM Cyber has 0. The average star rating for ThreatConnect is 3.5 while XM Cyber has an average rating of 0.0. ThreatConnect has more positive reviews than XM Cyber. Comparing ThreatConnect vs. XM Cyber reviews, ThreatConnect has stronger overall reviews.
ThreatConnect vs. XM Cyber both offer a strong set of features and functionality including Cybersecurity Features, Cybersecurity Protection Types, Reporting & Analytics, Workflow Automation, Compliance Accreditations, Drag-and-Drop Builders/Designers, Collaboration Tools, Reminders/Alerts, Report Management, Systems/Administrative, Customizable Items, Integration Options, After-Sales Service. In our feature comparison of ThreatConnect vs. XM Cyber, ThreatConnect offers more of the most popular features and tools than XM Cyber.
In our pricing comparison of ThreatConnect vs. XM Cyber, XM Cyber's pricing starts at N/A/month and is more affordable compared to XM Cyber's starting cost of N/A/month.
Our comparison of ThreatConnect vs. XM Cyber shows that ThreatConnect scores higher in usability for ease of use, meets requirements, learning curve, ease of admin. XM Cyber scores higher in , but ThreatConnect has the best scores overall for system usability.
Get your personalized recommendations now.
