We performed a comparison between ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) and ThreatQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Recorded Future, Check Point Software Technologies, Microsoft and others in Threat Intelligence Platforms."Log aggregation and data connectors are the most valuable features."
"The scalability is great. You can put unlimited logs in, as long as you can pay for it. There are commitment tiers, up to six terabytes per day, which is nowhere close to what any one of our customers is running."
"Sentinel enables us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem. In addition to integrating our Cisco ASA Firewall logs, we get our Palo Alto proxy logs and some on-premises data coming from our hardware devices... That is very important and is one way Sentinel is playing a wider role in our environment."
"If you know how to do KQL (kusto query language) queries, which are how you query the log data inside Sentinel, the information is pretty rich. You can get down to a good level of detail regarding event information or notifications."
"The UI-based analytics are excellent."
"The AI and ML of Azure Sentinel are valuable. We can use machine learning models at the tenant level and within Office 365 and Microsoft stack. We don't need to depend upon any other connectors. It automatically provisions the native Microsoft products."
"The dashboard that allows me to view all the incidents is the most valuable feature."
"Sentinel's most important feature is the ability to centralize all the logs in one place. There's no need to search multiple systems for information."
"The most valuable features are ease of use and the ability to customize it."
"ThreatConnect has a highly user-friendly interface."
"The product automatically generated a threat score based on the maliciousness of an IP."
"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 →
"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."
"Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy."
"I would like to be able to monitor applications outside of the Azure Cloud."
"They're giving us the queries so we can plug them right into Sentinel. They need to have a streamlined process for updating them in the tool and knowing when things are updated and knowing when there are new detections available from Microsoft."
"We've seen delays in getting the logs from third-party solutions and sometimes Microsoft products as well. It would be helpful if Microsoft created a list of the delays. That would make things more transparent for customers."
"In terms of features I would like to see in future releases, I'm interested in a few more use cases around automation. I do believe a lot of automation is available, and more is in progress, but that would be my area of interest."
"Everyone has their favorites. There is always room for improvement, and everybody will say, "I wish you could do this for me or that for me." It is a personal thing based on how you use the tool. I do not necessarily have those thoughts, and they are probably not really valuable because they are unique to the context of the user, but broadly, where it can continue to improve is by adding more connectors to more systems."
"Sentinel can be used in two ways. With other tools like QRadar, I don't need to run queries. Using Sentinel requires users to learn KQL to run technical queries and check things. If they don't know KQL, they can't fully utilize the solution."
"The performance could be improved. If I create 15 to 20 lines for a single-use case in KQL, sometimes it takes more time to execute. If I create use cases within a certain timeline, the result will show in .01 seconds. A complex query takes more time to get results."
"The dashboards can be improved. Creating dashboards is very easy, but the visualizations are not as good as Microsoft Power BI. People who are using Microsoft Power BI do not like Sentinel's dashboards."
"It would be good to have more feeds and more integrated sources for enrichment."
"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"
"I couldn’t get any training videos online when I was working with the tool."
More ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) Cons →
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
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 16th 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, Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR and CrowdStrike Falcon.
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.