Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Threat Grid vs ThreatQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 11, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Threat Grid
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms
30th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ThreatQ
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms
12th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Threat Intelligence Platforms category, the mindshare of Cisco Threat Grid is 1.2%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatQ is 2.8%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Threat Intelligence Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

Hasan A. Abu Al-Rob - PeerSpot reviewer
The solution is easy to implement, but the scalability and technical support must be improved
The solution is used for endpoint security The simplicity of implementation is valuable. The way the management file is integrated into the environment must be improved. Currently, I am using the solution. The tool is stable. We did not have any issues with it. I rate the tool’s scalability a…
Yasir Akram - PeerSpot reviewer
Good reporting and pretty stable but needs to be simpler to use
The support team of ThreatQ set up a VM on our VPN, which was SlashNext's private VPN. Then we just initiated some system calls and ThreatQ provided us the configuration file with our settings (like our email, our API key, our URL, our category, etc.). They set up a VM on our private VPN cloud. And then they provided us the configuration file in which we just entered our details like our company URL, our API category, and API keys et cetera. We could just add it on the configuration file. We just uploaded it to the ThreatQ server. After running the system calls, we just initiated the ThreatQ and then performed tasks on the UI, such as categorizing the reports. If we only wanted the report for phishing, then we just manipulated the data on the UI and just extracted the reports. That's all. The deployment was complex. We used high hardware specifications. I don't remember the exact specifications, however, I recall them being high. There were some services that had some compatibility errors. That's why we had our VMs - to make sure that the customer would not face any errors. Everything's deployed with high specifications and custom specifications. That was the biggest challenge for us - to deploy on the customer VMs. On average, deployment takes 15-20 minutes if it's deployed without any errors. I was with one of the NetOps network admin during deployment. We were only two people and we just deployed and installed all services and we executed the deployment.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the integration with firewalls. It's integrated with AMP so the ecosystem with equal solutions from Threat Grid is good with CISCO products."
"It is easy to implement and is very scalable. It also comes with very good documentation. Cisco provides good technical support as well."
"The simplicity of implementation is valuable."
"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."
 

Cons

"I was told that the user interface could be more user friendly and easy in comparison to that of competitors. I remember that there is a competitor who has a much easier interface for many users to interact with."
"They come in and have multiple management solutions but it doesn't scan or doesn't have the ability to look at every file extension."
"Support must be improved."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If I remember correctly, the licensing cost is a little bit higher than that of the competitor."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Threat Intelligence Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
10%
Energy/Utilities Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco Threat Grid?
The simplicity of implementation is valuable.
What needs improvement with Cisco Threat Grid?
The way the management file is integrated into the environment must be improved.
What do you like most about ThreatQ?
Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy.
What needs improvement with ThreatQ?
The tool is not user-friendly. It is not beginner-friendly. It would be very difficult for a beginner to learn the tool. It will take at least two months to get familiar with it. Building the playb...
What is your primary use case for ThreatQ?
We used the solution for threat mapping and managing IoCs.
 

Also Known As

Threat Grid, ThreatGrid
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Center for Internet Security (CIS), ADP
Radar, Bitdefender, Crowdstrike, FireEye, IBM Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Threat Grid vs. ThreatQ and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.