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

MetaDefender vs Recorded Future 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

MetaDefender
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
38th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (37th), Anti-Malware Tools (37th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (19th)
Recorded Future
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Digital Risk Protection (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) category, the mindshare of MetaDefender is 1.5%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Recorded Future is 7.9%, down from 18.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Recorded Future7.9%
MetaDefender1.5%
Other90.6%
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
 

Featured Reviews

Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.
reviewer1607682 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Cyber Threat Intelligence at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Integrating intelligence within systems refines threat detection and provides enriched data insights
The integration of Recorded Future with my SIEM, specifically Splunk SIEM, has been extremely valuable. Having a layer of intelligence within my SIEM that reflects in Recorded Future, and being able to enrich the data at my SIEM, offers various angles that I wouldn't be able to see without it. Recorded Future allows me to maintain very accurate alerts.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
"The most valuable features of Recorded Future are the useful alerts it provides. If we are monitoring a domain, the solution will provide us with an alert in a prompt manner. It is simple for clients to receive alerts. The advanced search is useful for more accurate filter results."
"The tool can integrate with a lot of security control and proactive protection devices."
"The intel that they were providing us over the emails was very good. If it found any hashtag in our organization's name on the dark web, a rogue IP, or a marketplace, it would send us an email and notify us that this is being mentioned, and if we want, they can take some action."
"Recorded Future has some important strengths. It has a long history of success in the market and is known for excellent threat intelligence. Its team is skilled at using AI to search for and report on threats. For many years, it was seen as the best in the industry."
"The solution is diverse and provides me with a lot of different mechanisms for evaluation."
"It can collect data from various sources, including social media and the dark web."
"As a threat intelligence tool, it's very helpful."
"The most valuable feature of Recorded Future is how it detects everything regarding our domain."
 

Cons

"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
"There is a semantic oncology dynamic relationship between how the MIGR Tech framework needs more data infusion enrichment capabilities."
"The solution could improve in reducing the false positives. However, most of the other tools on the market have false positives. If they enhance their data algorithm, it could improve the accuracy of results and minimize false positives. Identifying patterns of false possibilities can aid in developing better reporting features that could potentially eliminate them in the future. This recording feature tool could benefit from adopting similar techniques utilized by other tools to enhance its functionality. By doing so, it could minimize the need for manual efforts in distinguishing true positives from false positives, ultimately reducing the workload."
"The solution would benefit from introducing automation."
"The product gives many false positives. If someone talks about the brand or organization name in the public domain over chats or blocks, it gets highlighted. It may not necessarily be a threat but still gets highlighted which increases the false positive count."
"Lacks sufficient visibility of malware and international APT attacks."
"It sometimes detects false positives and reduces the overall accuracy of the system."
"When you add one website to Recorded Future, it should automatically call all other websites and social media platforms."
"At present, my clients need to be trained by me or another organization on how to use Recorded Future and how to get the best out of it as an analyst, engineer, and administrator. It would be better if clients could directly learn these things without having to go through me or other organizations."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
"I would rate the solution’s pricing a seven out of ten."
"There appear to be up to five different levels, with the most expensive version costing around $95,000 to $105,000 a year for subscription services."
"The price of the solution is worth it. The overall performance of the solution outweighs the cost."
"The biggest disadvantage of Recorded Future is the cost here in Eastern Europe. The solution is correctly priced for big companies who have the money to invest in such solutions. Also, the solution is useless on its own, which means that you have to invest in other solutions with which Recorded Future can be integrated. At present, Recorded Future can cost 60,000 euros per year. I am able to offer my clients a 5% to 10% discount, but in this region, the cost is still prohibitive even with the discount. If Recorded Future were more flexible in terms of price, there would be better sales opportunities in Europe and Eastern Europe, in particular, because we have more small- and medium-sized companies here."
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
Financial Services Firm
13%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise9
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Recorded Future?
I am not the person responsible for purchases, but it's known that Recorded Future is expensive, with a personal rating of eight for cost.
What needs improvement with Recorded Future?
Their research capabilities and the human aspect should be more effective. The Insikt Group covers a narrow range of areas, which doesn't reflect my needs. Their research should be wider and more i...
What is your primary use case for Recorded Future?
Recorded Future ( /products/recorded-future-reviews ) is my main threat intelligence platform that provides alerts regarding brand protection, relevant threat actors, threat groups, and intelligenc...
 

Also Known As

OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Fujitsu, Regions, SITA, St. Jude Medical, Accenture, T-Mobile, TIAA, Intel Security, Armor, Alert Logic, NTT, Splunk
Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, Recorded Future, VirusTotal and others in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP). Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.