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

Recorded Future vs ThreatQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

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

Recorded Future
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Digital Risk Protection (1st)
ThreatQ
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms
11th
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 June 2025, in the Threat Intelligence Platforms category, the mindshare of Recorded Future is 16.9%, down from 19.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatQ is 2.8%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Threat Intelligence Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

Dr. Merrick Watchorn - PeerSpot reviewer
Traceless online searches, stable, and scalable
There is a semantic oncology dynamic relationship between how the MIGR Tech framework needs more data infusion enrichment capabilities. To be clear, what the vendor is doing is of a high standard, and my only critique is that they need to make new enhancements. I am aware that the vendor is making a concerted effort to add additional information to their repository, and it is something they actively do. The vendor has publicly stated that they will work on this, and I always pay attention to make sure they adhere to that. This does not change over time. The export feature of the recording needs to stop being so restricted. When they record in order to save themselves by operations, I would expect that as a super user, if I asked to download the dataset I'm looking for, I would not be limited in my data downloads. One of the cool things is, let's say we do our entire research and we want to save all of the materials that were returned, and that special custom search that we made, we can export that into a CSV file. The problem is it gets restricted. So sometimes when I say it's restricted, we don't get all the data that we saw online. So then we have to go and manually search for the specific thing we're looking for. I would like to have the URI and whatever value set that I search off, and for the NLP package to not be stripped out. It's like saying I want to do a Pcap analysis. Don't strip out the Pcap when I asked to see Pcap. That's what they're doing. They do this for many different reasons. One of them is, imagine if everyone downloaded datasets that are very large and it brings the whole system down.
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

"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 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."
"As a threat intelligence tool, it's very helpful."
"From the feedback I've received from my clients, the most valuable feature is the ability to personalize the solution. The ability to have a customized dashboard makes it easy for leadership and management to obtain details. Intelligence analysts or security engineers care about the actions and results, whereas the leadership care about graphs and reports. Recorded Future helps my clients create reports and also determine how the intelligence that is generated is consumed. They can easily show the benefits to the leadership without them having to invest 10 hours a week into transferring numbers into a graph or into creating reports."
"Has the ability to conduct and build any query without limitations."
"The tool is helpful in vulnerability assessment of zero-day vulnerabilities and phishing domains. The solution provides information on any domains of the organization that has undergone phishing or any other cyberattacks."
"It can collect data from various sources, including social media and the dark web."
"The most valuable feature is Recorded Future's protection of exposed customer data on the hardware side."
"Integrating the solution with our existing security tools and workflows was easy."
"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."
 

Cons

"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."
"The solution would benefit from introducing automation."
"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 tool should improve its third-party supply chain risks because there is a lack of visibility."
"While I don't think the tool is weak, its position isn't as dominant as it once was. Other companies like CrowdStrike and Mandiant are now challenging them in many areas. One downside is that Recorded Future can be complex for customers to use and understand. This isn't easy for clients to navigate."
"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."
"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

"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 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."
"I would rate the solution’s pricing a seven out of ten."
"The price of the solution is worth it. The overall performance of the solution outweighs the cost."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Threat Intelligence Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Recorded Future?
The most valuable feature of Recorded Future is how it detects everything regarding our domain.
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 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.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Fujitsu, Regions, SITA, St. Jude Medical, Accenture, T-Mobile, TIAA, Intel Security, Armor, Alert Logic, NTT, Splunk
Radar, Bitdefender, Crowdstrike, FireEye, IBM Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Recorded Future vs. ThreatQ and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.