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

Cyware Cyber Fusion vs Group-IB Threat Intelligence comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Cyware Cyber Fusion
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
28th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (22nd)
Group-IB Threat Intelligence
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
10th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) category, the mindshare of Cyware Cyber Fusion is 1.4%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Group-IB Threat Intelligence is 1.9%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Group-IB Threat Intelligence1.9%
Cyware Cyber Fusion1.4%
Other96.7%
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2342886 - PeerSpot reviewer
Director of Cyber Security APAC at a pharma/biotech company with 10,001+ employees
The threat emails are not tailored to our company, though the product is stable
The threat emails are not tailored to our company. It just gives us every newsletter and bombards our email box. The solution must be able to provide threat feeds. We shouldn’t have to rely on third parties and pay for additional licenses. The tool doesn't integrate well with ServiceNow. It is our main ticketing platform.
ALEX LOGINOV - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Partner at INTEGRISEC CONSULTING
Completely satisfied with the way the report is prepared and easy to setup
We did use it for threat detection, but not directly. I analyze multiple reports, including this one, and assess my client's infrastructure. I identify threats outlined in the reports that may be relevant to the client's infrastructure, and then I help them build detection use cases. There's no automation. We don't do anything automatically at this point. It's all manual and based on analysis. I can't integrate it into automatic feeds because the report outlines threats that may not be relevant to the client's infrastructure. So, I do the analysis and integrate it manually. I'm completely satisfied with the way the report is prepared. It's a good report.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The technical support team is helpful."
"The product is stable."
"We have found the site intelligence features to be the most valuable."
"The totality of the recordings is quite important. The networks, the new threat actors, the new methods, tactics, techniques, and procedures."
"The most valuable Group-IB Threat Intelligence features are their detections, especially in terms of account and card information leakage. This data sets Group-IB apart from some of the competition."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the sandbox."
"Threat Intelligence's best feature is threat activation."
 

Cons

"The tool doesn't integrate well with ServiceNow."
"The prices must be reduced."
"Group-IB Threat Intelligence should improve integration for SIEM and SOAR solutions."
"The lack of appliance-based or on-premise options for this solution is its biggest downfall. Clients request them often."
"The web intelligence could be improved. It is not as good as the intelligence from other solutions."
"As the landscape evolves, they could provide a little more detail or specificity to map it to the MITRE ATT&CK framework."
"Threat Intelligence's OT security could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The pricing is alright. It's right on the mark."
"Threat Intelligence is costly, but it gives value for money."
"Group-IB Threat Intelligence's pricing is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
6%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Cyware Threat Intelligence eXchange?
The threat emails are not tailored to our company. It just gives us every newsletter and bombards our email box. The solution must be able to provide threat feeds. We shouldn’t have to rely on thir...
What is your primary use case for Cyware Threat Intelligence eXchange?
We use the solution for the correlation of threat feeds and reporting.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Group-IB Threat Intelligence?
The pricing is alright. It's right on the mark. It costs money, but it's not too high. It's reasonable. For me, it's a reasonable price for the quality of the product.
What needs improvement with Group-IB Threat Intelligence?
As the landscape evolves, they could provide a little more detail or specificity to map it to the MITRE ATT&CK framework. Even though it is done in the report, it could be done better.
What is your primary use case for Group-IB Threat Intelligence?
I used it to build the strategic threat forecast. The annual forecast for clients.
 

Also Known As

CSOL, Fusion and Threat Response, Threat Intelligence eXchange, Security Orchestration and Automation (SOAR)
No data available
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Cyware Cyber Fusion vs. Group-IB Threat Intelligence and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.