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

RiskLens 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

RiskLens
Ranking in GRC
40th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Ranking in GRC
16th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the GRC category, the mindshare of RiskLens is 0.5%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier is 0.1%, down from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
GRC Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier0.1%
RiskLens0.5%
Other99.4%
GRC
 

Featured Reviews

Use RiskLens?
Share your opinion
Yash Bawane - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
866,391 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Large Enterprise13
 

Comparisons

No data available
No data available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about RSA, OneTrust, Diligent and others in GRC. Updated: August 2025.
866,391 professionals have used our research since 2012.