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

Logpoint vs ThreatQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 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

Logpoint
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
18th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (36th), Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (30th), User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (11th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (42nd)
ThreatQ
Ranking in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
22nd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) category, the mindshare of Logpoint is 1.1%, down from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatQ is 1.1%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

Abdullah Secca - PeerSpot reviewer
Valuable monitoring and integration features boost compliance
They are not in the US market, and the quality of support has declined. They migrated operations from Boston to Denmark, and we cannot use a tool hosted outside the country. Additionally, dealing with foreign entities for support was a challenge, leading us to switch providers due to lack of adequate support.
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 product is easy to use."
"The main advantage of Logpoint is the support service. They reply within ten minutes to an hour to our queries."
"The most valuable features are the ones that we use the most, which are the search and report facilities."
"The solution's most valuable aspect is the combination of the software and the support that they have."
"They basically charge you in a better way."
"The solution offers excellent reporting features. Our customers have been satisfied that they have been able to meet their compliance needs by giving them a standard report."
"What I like best about LogPoint is its cost-effectiveness compared to other solutions. LogPoint also has better dashboards which I find valuable. I also like that you can create use cases based on your assets."
"The solution's user interface is quite simple, and the integration is better than other products."
"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

"In terms of functionality, it is very good. The only issue is the documentation. Its documentation should be improved."
"Nowadays the trend is going towards the ransomware and the endpoint detection and response. So if they added something for that, that will be very, very good."
"Logpoint is not flexible. Its documentation is not user-friendly."
"I know that they have user behavior analytics, but it's an extra cost for this feature. It would be nice if it was in with the standard products."
"The solution should offer more integrations and third-party solutions like incident response platforms or allow access to third-party big data"
"One of the things we faced last year was that we had some memory issues with the server running. We were running them as virtual services, and we were facing some performance issues. Back then, there were some things that had already been solved at the end, but one of the small issues we had was that it was quite memory-consuming. After one upgrade that we did, we faced some performance issues."
"The documentation part is something that needs to be improved, as well as the threat intelligence investigation part."
"The interface needs things like wizards that will assist with creating complex correlation rules."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's getting more expensive, which is one of the reasons we're looking around just to see if there's anything better value."
"It's less expensive than the competitors. The Logpoint marketing team is very accommodating and client-friendly. They offer very good reductions in price. They are pretty good in this aspect. They are transparent in their licensing and pricing."
"It has a fixed price, which is what I like about LogPoint. I bought the system and paid for it, and I pay maintenance. It is not a consumption model. Most SIEMs or most of the log management systems are consumption-based, which means that you pay for how many logs you have in the system. That's a real problem because logs can grow very quickly in different circumstances, and when you have a variable price model, you never know what you're going to pay. Splunk is notoriously expensive for that reason. If you use Splunk or QRadar, it becomes expensive because there are not just the logs; you also have to parse the logs and create indexes. Those indexes can be very expensive in terms of space. Therefore, if they charge you by this space, you can end up paying a significant amount of money. It can be more than what you expect to pay. I like the fact that LogPoint has a fixed cost. I know what I'm going to pay on a yearly basis. I pay that, and I pay the maintenance, and I just make it work."
"My company used to pay for LogPoint costs annually. It's a cost-effective solution. I'm not part of the Finance team, though, so I'm not sure exactly what the licensing fee is or what license my company had."
"Our licensing fees are about $10,000 USD per month, which I think is fair."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I would rate LogPoint's pricing a seven. It is not very expensive compared to some of the more costly products, and it is not very cheap compared to some of the cheaper products in the SIEM market."
"Logpoint's pricing is mid-ranged and depends on the number of devices."
"It was on a yearly basis at about $100K. It was not a huge environment. We were running it on our own virtual server environment, which, of course, had a cost. There was hardware and some energy cost, and then there were Microsoft Windows licenses for servers. That's all, but there was nothing in comparison to the licensing costs."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
28%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Non Profit
6%
Financial Services Firm
24%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for LogPoint?
I rate the pricing at eight, suggesting it's relatively good or affordable.
What needs improvement with LogPoint?
Logpoint needs to be cloud-native, as currently, it is not. Additionally, there should be compliance mapping, where the features and actions within Logpoint map to security compliance standards.
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.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AP Pension, Copenhagen Airports, KMD, Terma, DISA, Danish Crown, Durham City Council, Game, TopDanmark, Lahti Energia, Energi Midt, Synoptik, Eissmann Group Automotive, Aligro, CG50...
Radar, Bitdefender, Crowdstrike, FireEye, IBM Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Logpoint vs. ThreatQ and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.