We performed a comparison between ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) and ThreatQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Threat Intelligence Platforms solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup is very simple and straightforward."
"Sentinel also enables you to ingest data from your entire ecosystem and not just from the Microsoft ecosystem. It can receive data from third-party vendors' products such firewalls, network devices, and antivirus solutions. It's not only a Microsoft solution, it's for everything."
"The most valuable features in my experience are the UEBA, LDAP, the threat scheduler, and integration with third-party straight perform like the MISP."
"There are some very powerful features to Sentinel, such as the integration of various connectors. We have a lot of departments that use both IaaS and SaaS services, including M365 as well as Azure services. The ability to leverage connectors into these environments allows for large-scale data injection."
"Its inbuilt Kusto Query Language is a valuable feature. It provides the flexibility needed to leverage advanced data analytics rules and policies and enables us to easily navigate all our security events in a single view. It helps any user easily understand the data or any security lags in their data and applications."
"Log aggregation and data connectors are the most valuable features."
"The UI of Sentinel is very good and easy to use, even for beginners."
"We have no complaints about the features or functionality."
"The product automatically generated a threat score based on the maliciousness of an IP."
"The most valuable features are ease of use and the ability to customize it."
"ThreatConnect has a highly user-friendly interface."
"It's a solid platform and is stable enough. It is not complicated and is easy to use."
More ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) Pros →
"Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy."
"The reporting services are great. With reporting services, if you have customers that just visit a URL you can see the result - including why it's blocked and how and how the URL was first recognized as malicious."
"Sentinel should be improved with more connectors. At the moment, it only covers a few vendors. If I remember correctly, only 100 products are supported natively in Sentinel, although you can connect them with syslog. But Microsoft should increase the number of native connectors to get logs into Sentinel."
"Sentinel still has some anomalies. For example, sometimes when we write a query for log analysis with KQL, it doesn't give us the data in a proper way... Also, the fields or columns could be improved. Sometimes, it is not giving the desired results and there is a blank field."
"There is room for improvement in entity behavior and the integration site."
"I would like to be able to monitor applications outside of the Azure Cloud."
"The following would be a challenge for any product in the market, but we have some in-house apps in our environment... our apps were built with different parameters and the APIs for them are not present in Sentinel. We are working with Microsoft to build those custom APIs that we require. That is currently in progress."
"We do have in-built or out-of-the-box metrics that are shown on the dashboard, but it doesn't give the kind of metrics that we need from our environment whereby we need to check the meantime to detect and meantime to resolve an incident. I have to do it manually. I have to pull all the logs or all the alerts that are fed into Sentinel over a certain period. We do this on a monthly basis, so I go into Microsoft Sentinel and pull all the alerts or incidents we closed over a period of thirty days."
"If you're looking to use canned queries, the interface could be a little more straightforward. It's not immediately intuitive regarding how you use it. You have to take a canned query and paste it into an operational box and then you hit a button... They could improve the ease of deploying these queries."
"I believe one of the challenges I encountered was the absence of live training sessions, even with the option to pay for them."
"Integration is an area that could use some improvement."
"They should make it a little bit easier to generate events and share them with the community"
"It would be good to have more feeds and more integrated sources for enrichment."
"I couldn’t get any training videos online when I was working with the tool."
More ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) Cons →
"The tool is not user-friendly."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
More ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) Pricing and Cost Advice →
ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) is ranked 4th in Threat Intelligence Platforms with 4 reviews while ThreatQ is ranked 12th in Threat Intelligence Platforms with 2 reviews. ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) is rated 8.0, while ThreatQ is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) writes "The tool could be integrated into any environment, but it was expensive, and the deployment process was complex". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ThreatQ writes "Improves the threat intelligence gathering process, but it is not user-friendly". ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) is most compared with Anomali ThreatStream, Recorded Future, Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, Anomali Match and Splunk SOAR, whereas ThreatQ is most compared with Anomali ThreatStream, Recorded Future and Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR. See our ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) vs. ThreatQ report.
See our list of best Threat Intelligence Platforms vendors and best Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) vendors.
We monitor all Threat Intelligence Platforms reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
