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

NAVEX Global vs ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier 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

NAVEX Global
Ranking in GRC
26th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Ranking in GRC
18th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the GRC category, the mindshare of NAVEX Global is 1.7%, down from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
GRC Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier0.4%
NAVEX Global1.7%
Other97.9%
GRC
 

Featured Reviews

JT
-- at a performing arts with 201-500 employees
The streamlined process of getting policies out to all staff in a quick efficient manner has been most valuable.
Currently we have monthly competencies that the 2 Staff Development Departments would initiate by a manual paper process and have to track staff down for all 3 shifts. Since we have started placing these items on Policytech, we have had a much better compliance rate as the staff are able to do it and it automatically records responses and results. Staff either read a document or view a powerpoint and then have a survey to answer, they have to receive a passing grade and if they pass they then receive the competency for that specific training. What we would like to add would be to be able to have Templates for certificates as we have different types of programs that have specific required documentation on the certificates, currently the certificates are one size fits all and that doesn’t work for us. So we are running a weekly report and manually send staff certificates. Another area is tracking Writer, Reviewer, and Approver statuses.
Yash Bawane - PeerSpot reviewer
Data engineer at tcs
Enhancing decision-making with automation and integration capabilities
Overall, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier is powerful, but there are some areas for improvement. A few areas could be better; first, the learning curve is steep for new users, and a guided onboarding or tutorial would help. Second, report customization could be more flexible so different teams can see exactly what they need. Additionally, handling very large data sets can slow down occasionally, so performance optimization would be helpful. Finally, adding more predictive analytics or AI-driven insights could automatically highlight unusual risks or trends without manual analysis. We mostly work on data, so we face many challenges with large data sets when using ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier. When you feed very large data sets into RQ, such as hundreds of applications and thousands of vulnerabilities, the performance can sometimes slow down during scoring or dashboard updates. It doesn't break, but processing can take longer than expected. This is mostly unnoticeable during bulk imports or complex scenario analysis, so planning updates during off-peak hours or breaking data into smaller batches can help. Overall, it's reliable, but performance could be improved for very large-scale data and environments. It would be great to have more interactive dashboards that let users drill down easily without leaving the main view. Another useful addition could be automated alerts or notifications when risk scores change significantly, so the team doesn't have to check a dashboard constantly. Lastly, more built-in guidance or AI tips for interpreting FAIR-based metrics could help new users to get up to speed faster. Overall, the tool is strong, but these additions would make it even more efficient and user-friendly.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which GRC solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Retailer
7%
Performing Arts
7%
Media Company
59%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise4
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier is overall good because the pricing is reasonable for the value it provides. Though it's not the cheapest opt...
What needs improvement with ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier?
ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier can be improved by making the scenario modeling and reporting more interactive and customizable, allowing analysts to quickly adjust parameters and visualize what-if o...
What is your primary use case for ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier?
ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier serves as my main tool in my current organization. In my current organization, we use ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier to prioritize vulnerabilities and threats across mu...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Toyota, Delta, Cedars-Sinai, Coca-Cola, Equifax, Cisco, Yahoo!, Jamba Juice, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, Auburn University, NEC, Fleet Laboratories, AVAYA, Del Taco, Valero, OCWEN, Samaritan Health Services, Levi Strauss & Co, Telus
Customer Case Studies and Use Cases
Find out what your peers are saying about NAVEX Global vs. ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.