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

Top 10 Recorded Future Alternatives

Vendor: Recorded Future
4.2 out of 5
Badge Ranked 1
687 followers
Start review

Top Recorded Future Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Recorded Future based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include CrowdStrike Falcon, VirusTotal, and Cymulate. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. Recorded Future surpasses its competitors by offering real-time threat intelligence through advanced machine learning, enabling organizations to proactively mitigate risks with unparalleled accuracy and comprehensive threat analysis capabilities.

Recorded Future Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Recorded Future, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
Recorded Future Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
Recorded Future offers powerful threat intelligence with social media investigations and data mining. CrowdStrike Falcon, in comparison, features effective endpoint detection and cloud deployment. Recorded Future's pricing demands careful consideration, while CrowdStrike's cost-effectiveness benefits larger enterprises with extensive features.
Download CrowdStrike Falcon vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost, while CrowdStrike Falcon is often noted for its higher setup fees, making it a key consideration.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost, while CrowdStrike Falcon is often noted for its higher setup fees, making it a key consideration.
Recorded Future Logo
VirusTotal
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
VirusTotal
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in dark web monitoring and integration, suitable for users valuing comprehensive intelligence. In comparison, VirusTotal, strong in malware detection and multi-antivirus integration, benefits tech buyers needing diverse API systems, although it lacks Recorded Future's dark web intelligence.
Download Recorded Future vs. VirusTotal Report
Recorded Future requires a significant initial setup cost, whereas VirusTotal offers a streamlined process with a lower initial financial barrier, highlighting distinct differences in their pricing structures.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires a significant initial setup cost, whereas VirusTotal offers a streamlined process with a lower initial financial barrier, highlighting distinct differences in their pricing structures.
Recorded Future Logo
Cymulate
4.3 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Cymulate
4.3 out of 5
Recorded Future offers extensive threat intelligence and predictive analytics, appealing to organizations needing comprehensive data. In comparison, Cymulate excels in threat simulation and security validation, advantageous for those prioritizing vulnerability identification. Cymulate provides efficient cloud deployment, while Recorded Future offers strategic insight for detailed threat landscapes.
Download Cymulate vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future requires significant upfront investment, whereas Cymulate offers a more cost-effective setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires significant upfront investment, whereas Cymulate offers a more cost-effective setup.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System
4.0 out of 5
Recorded Future offers robust threat intelligence with strong dark web data search capabilities, ideal for comprehensive security needs. In comparison, Trend Micro TippingPoint focuses on intrusion prevention with extensive IPS signature databases, suitable for network protection and offering different modes for enhanced flexibility.
Download Recorded Future vs. Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System Report
Recorded Future has a lower setup cost compared to Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, which requires a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a lower setup cost compared to Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, which requires a higher initial investment.
Recorded Future Logo
ZeroFOX
4.3 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
ZeroFOX
4.3 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in threat intelligence and data analysis, appealing for its favorable pricing and rich insights. In comparison, ZeroFOX impresses with social media protection and brand monitoring, ideal for those prioritizing online brand safety despite higher costs.
Download Recorded Future vs. ZeroFOX Report
Recorded Future's setup costs are competitive and transparent, while ZeroFOX offers a more flexible pricing model tailored to specific needs.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup costs are competitive and transparent, while ZeroFOX offers a more flexible pricing model tailored to specific needs.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP)
4.2 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in threat detection and personalized alerts, offering extensive threat intelligence. In comparison, ThreatConnect focuses on automation and ease of use, providing effective data correlation. Recorded Future faces pricing challenges, while ThreatConnect could improve training resources.
Download Recorded Future vs. ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) Report
Recorded Future requires no setup cost, while ThreatConnect incurs a higher initial expenditure. This distinction is crucial for organizations evaluating budget constraints.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires no setup cost, while ThreatConnect incurs a higher initial expenditure. This distinction is crucial for organizations evaluating budget constraints.
Recorded Future Logo
Anomali
3.9 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Anomali
3.9 out of 5
Recorded Future often attracts customers with its comprehensive threat intelligence database and straightforward deployment. In comparison, Anomali appeals through flexible pricing, streamlined data correlation, and extensive API support, making it suitable for organizations prioritizing customized integrations and cost-effectiveness.
Download Anomali vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup without additional costs, while Anomali requires a more complex setup with potential extra expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup without additional costs, while Anomali requires a more complex setup with potential extra expenses.
Recorded Future Logo
ReversingLabs
4.6 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
ReversingLabs
4.6 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in threat intelligence and predictive analytics, beneficial for organizations prioritizing real-time threat detection. In comparison, ReversingLabs offers advanced malware analysis and file inspection, ideal for businesses focusing on comprehensive malware defenses and flexible deployment options.
Download Recorded Future vs. ReversingLabs Report
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with lower initial costs, contrasting with ReversingLabs, which requires a higher setup investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with lower initial costs, contrasting with ReversingLabs, which requires a higher setup investment.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
ReliaQuest GreyMatter
1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers enhanced threat intelligence and predictive analytics, appealing to those prioritizing advanced threat insights. In comparison, ReliaQuest GreyMatter emphasizes seamless integration and operational efficiency, ideal for buyers seeking a robust security operations center with comprehensive incident response and threat detection capabilities.
Recorded Future typically has a higher setup cost compared to ReliaQuest GreyMatter, which often offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future typically has a higher setup cost compared to ReliaQuest GreyMatter, which often offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
Recorded Future Logo
Cybersixgill
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Cybersixgill
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future offers comprehensive data analytics, real-time threat intelligence, and integration capabilities for organizations needing extensive threat analysis. In comparison, Cybersixgill provides robust dark web monitoring, delivering deep threat insights with seamless deployment and a more cost-effective initial setup.
Download Cybersixgill vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future offers a transparent setup cost structure, while Cybersixgill provides flexibility with customizable setup options.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a transparent setup cost structure, while Cybersixgill provides flexibility with customizable setup options.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence
4.2 out of 5
Recorded Future offers comprehensive data collection, actionable alerts, and flexible dashboards, proving valuable for threat analysts. In comparison, Microsoft Defender integrates seamlessly within the Microsoft ecosystem, providing robust threat detection and remediation, leveraging global telemetry data for addressing vulnerabilities efficiently.
Download Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future's setup cost is notably higher compared to Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, which offers a more budget-friendly option.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup cost is notably higher compared to Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, which offers a more budget-friendly option.
Recorded Future Logo
CyberInt Argos
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
CyberInt Argos
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in integration capabilities with a broad intelligence database. In comparison, CyberInt Argos offers targeted insights focusing on digital risk protection. Tech buyers might choose Recorded Future for comprehensive analytics or CyberInt Argos for specialized social media threat detection and personalized support.
Recorded Future charges a higher setup cost compared to CyberInt Argos, highlighting its focus on premium services. CyberInt Argos offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to businesses seeking budget-conscious solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future charges a higher setup cost compared to CyberInt Argos, highlighting its focus on premium services. CyberInt Argos offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to businesses seeking budget-conscious solutions.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Group-IB Threat Intelligence
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future offers extensive data coverage and efficient automation, appealing to those prioritizing broad data access and cost-effectiveness. In comparison, Group-IB excels in detailed threat analysis and robust support, attractive for organizations requiring deep insights and premium service despite higher costs.
Download Group-IB Threat Intelligence vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future offers flexible pricing with detailed setup guidelines, while Group-IB Threat Intelligence requires a higher initial setup cost that includes comprehensive implementation support.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers flexible pricing with detailed setup guidelines, while Group-IB Threat Intelligence requires a higher initial setup cost that includes comprehensive implementation support.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus
3.9 out of 5
Recorded Future is favored for its detailed data analysis and cost-effectiveness. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus excels in integration with Palo Alto services and features a seamless deployment process. Tech buyers might choose Recorded Future for analytics or AutoFocus for network integration.
Download Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with minimal costs, while Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus entails higher initial expenses, providing advanced analytics capabilities to justify its setup investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with minimal costs, while Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus entails higher initial expenses, providing advanced analytics capabilities to justify its setup investment.
Recorded Future Logo
ThreatQ
3.5 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
ThreatQ
3.5 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in real-time threat intelligence and efficient data integration. In comparison, ThreatQ offers customizable management and automated response. Recorded Future ensures quick deployment and support, while ThreatQ appeals with tailored features and strong customization, despite higher initial costs.
Download Recorded Future vs. ThreatQ Report
Recorded Future offers automated setup with minimal cost, while ThreatQ requires more significant upfront investment for setup. These differences highlight varied initial financial commitments for each solution.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers automated setup with minimal cost, while ThreatQ requires more significant upfront investment for setup. These differences highlight varied initial financial commitments for each solution.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Flashpoint Intelligence Platform
3.0 out of 5
Recorded Future offers robust analytics and integration for threat visibility and ease of deployment. In comparison, Flashpoint Intelligence Platform provides in-depth threat actor profiles and detailed insights, appealing to organizations valuing enriched threat data despite a more complex initial setup and higher investment.
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost, making it less budget-friendly, while Flashpoint Intelligence Platform offers a more economical initial investment, highlighting a cost-saving advantage compared to Recorded Future.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost, making it less budget-friendly, while Flashpoint Intelligence Platform offers a more economical initial investment, highlighting a cost-saving advantage compared to Recorded Future.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
IBM X-Force Exchange
4.1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers real-time threat analysis and predictive capabilities, aiding timely decisions. In comparison, IBM X-Force Exchange provides a comprehensive threat database and integrates seamlessly within IBM tools, appealing to those seeking a holistic security approach.
Download IBM X-Force Exchange vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future incurs higher setup costs compared to the more budget-friendly IBM X-Force Exchange, which may impact initial investment considerations.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future incurs higher setup costs compared to the more budget-friendly IBM X-Force Exchange, which may impact initial investment considerations.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Tenable One Exposure Management Platform
4.5 out of 5
Recorded Future provides real-time threat intelligence, enabling quick threat assessment. In comparison, Tenable One Exposure Management Platform excels in vulnerability assessment and risk management. Tech buyers might choose Recorded Future for threat intelligence, while Tenable One offers superior exposure management despite higher costs.
Download Recorded Future vs. Tenable One Exposure Management Platform Report
Recorded Future's setup cost is significantly higher compared to Tenable One Exposure Management Platform, which offers a more cost-effective initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup cost is significantly higher compared to Tenable One Exposure Management Platform, which offers a more cost-effective initial investment.
Recorded Future Logo
Digital Shadows
3.5 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Digital Shadows
3.5 out of 5
Digital Shadows offers customizable threat intelligence and strong integration at competitive pricing. In comparison, Recorded Future provides detailed analytics with real-time recommendations. Digital Shadows ensures straightforward deployment, while Recorded Future excels with expansive intelligence and higher ROI through advanced data insights.
Digital Shadows offers competitive setup costs, whereas Recorded Future presents a higher expense in initial setup, highlighting a significant financial difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Digital Shadows offers competitive setup costs, whereas Recorded Future presents a higher expense in initial setup, highlighting a significant financial difference between the two solutions.
Recorded Future Logo
Intel 471
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Intel 471
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in comprehensive data integration for broad threat analysis, offering extensive data sources and real-time detection. In comparison, Intel 471 is strong in tactical intelligence with deep expertise in malware analysis, appealing to those needing detailed cybercriminal activity insights.
Recorded Future generally offers straightforward setup processes with moderate costs, while Intel 471 typically involves a higher setup cost, reflecting its comprehensive service integration.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future generally offers straightforward setup processes with moderate costs, while Intel 471 typically involves a higher setup cost, reflecting its comprehensive service integration.
Recorded Future Logo
CloudSEK XVigil
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
CloudSEK XVigil
1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers extensive data integrations and comprehensive threat analysis, suiting those seeking diverse connection options. In comparison, CloudSEK XVigil provides advanced threat detection and swift deployment, ideal for buyers prioritizing proactive intelligence and ease of use over budget considerations.
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup process, whereas CloudSEK XVigil's setup is more complex and may involve additional costs, highlighting distinct differences in initial deployment experiences.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup process, whereas CloudSEK XVigil's setup is more complex and may involve additional costs, highlighting distinct differences in initial deployment experiences.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Fortra's PhishLabs Threat Intelligence
1 out of 5
Recorded Future is favored for its competitive pricing and seamless integration, offering wide-ranging threat intelligence capabilities. In comparison, Fortra's PhishLabs, with its specialized focus on phishing prevention, provides higher ROI through advanced security features, appealing to organizations prioritizing phishing threat management.
Recorded Future generally involves a higher initial setup cost compared to Fortra's PhishLabs Threat Intelligence, which maintains a more budget-friendly approach to initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future generally involves a higher initial setup cost compared to Fortra's PhishLabs Threat Intelligence, which maintains a more budget-friendly approach to initial expenses.
Recorded Future Logo
IntSights
4.5 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
IntSights
4.5 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in real-time threat analytics and support, appealing to organizations prioritizing scalability in cybersecurity. In comparison, IntSights offers broader threat prevention and easier deployment, making it suitable for those seeking comprehensive digital risk management with moderate setup costs.
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost, whereas IntSights offers a more customizable pricing model.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost, whereas IntSights offers a more customizable pricing model.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence
1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers extensive integration and predictive threat analysis appealing to those valuing seamless deployment. In comparison, SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence attracts with enhanced analytics and automated response, drawing organizations that prioritize deep insights and tailored capabilities despite higher costs.
Recorded Future offers straightforward setup costs, while SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence presents a more flexible cost structure.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers straightforward setup costs, while SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence presents a more flexible cost structure.
Recorded Future Logo
Cisco Threat Grid
3.8 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Cisco Threat Grid
3.8 out of 5
Recorded Future is favored for its competitive pricing and straightforward deployment. In comparison, Cisco Threat Grid excels with advanced malware analysis and feature-rich capabilities, despite higher upfront costs. Tech buyers might choose Recorded Future for simplicity, while Cisco offers depth in threat analysis.
Download Cisco Threat Grid vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost, while Cisco Threat Grid typically involves a more complex and higher initial investment. This distinction highlights a key difference in the setup phase between the two threat intelligence solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost, while Cisco Threat Grid typically involves a more complex and higher initial investment. This distinction highlights a key difference in the setup phase between the two threat intelligence solutions.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Fortinet FortiRecon
1 out of 5
Recorded Future is ideal for businesses needing extensive real-time threat intelligence and strategic insights. In comparison, Fortinet FortiRecon is suited for those prioritizing integration with Fortinet's security products, offering a holistic approach and better synergy within environments already utilizing the Fortinet suite.
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup process that minimizes initial costs, while Fortinet FortiRecon requires a more resource-intensive setup, leading to higher upfront expenses. This marks a significant difference between the two in terms of initial pricing considerations.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup process that minimizes initial costs, while Fortinet FortiRecon requires a more resource-intensive setup, leading to higher upfront expenses. This marks a significant difference between the two in terms of initial pricing considerations.
Recorded Future Logo
KELA Cyber
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
KELA Cyber
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels with broad data analysis and efficient threat detection, while KELA Cyber focuses on dark web intelligence for enhanced cyber defense. In comparison, Recorded Future offers easier deployment, while KELA Cyber justifies higher costs with specialized threat insights, appealing to niche security needs.
Recorded Future's setup cost is higher, reflecting its comprehensive threat intelligence features, while KELA Cyber offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to those with budget constraints seeking focused threat intelligence solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup cost is higher, reflecting its comprehensive threat intelligence features, while KELA Cyber offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to those with budget constraints seeking focused threat intelligence solutions.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Cognyte Threat Intelligence Analytics
1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers robust analytics and broad data integration, appealing to users prioritizing integration. In comparison, Cognyte Threat Intelligence Analytics is favored for its advanced visualization capabilities, making it ideal for those needing comprehensive insights and strategic threat intelligence.
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost compared to Cognyte Threat Intelligence Analytics. Both solutions differ significantly in initial investment requirements.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost compared to Cognyte Threat Intelligence Analytics. Both solutions differ significantly in initial investment requirements.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
DomainTools Iris
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in integrating real-time threat analysis with extensive data sources, appealing to tech buyers needing broad threat visibility. In comparison, DomainTools Iris offers domain-specific insights and cost-effective deployment, attracting those focused on domain intelligence and risk mitigation.
Recorded Future requires no setup cost for implementation, while DomainTools Iris incurs a significant initial fee.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires no setup cost for implementation, while DomainTools Iris incurs a significant initial fee.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Group-IB Digital Risk Protection
4.5 out of 5
Recorded Future excels with extensive threat intelligence and advanced analytics. In comparison, Group-IB Digital Risk Protection offers specialized digital risk monitoring insights. Recorded Future may require complex setup, whereas Group-IB facilitates easier integration. Pricing favors Group-IB for focused threat landscapes, while Recorded Future offers broader analytical returns.
Recorded Future has a lower setup cost, providing a cost-effective start, while Group-IB Digital Risk Protection incurs a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a lower setup cost, providing a cost-effective start, while Group-IB Digital Risk Protection incurs a higher initial investment.
Recorded Future Logo
Axur
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Axur
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in analytics and seamless tool integration, ideal for comprehensive threat intelligence. In comparison, Axur focuses on fraud prevention and digital risk, appealing to firms prioritizing online brand protection. Recorded Future suits broader needs, while Axur attracts those needing specialized solutions.
Recorded Future requires an upfront setup cost, while Axur provides a more flexible initial cost structure, highlighting a key difference in their pricing models.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires an upfront setup cost, while Axur provides a more flexible initial cost structure, highlighting a key difference in their pricing models.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Blueliv Threat Compass
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in pricing and support, providing real-time intelligence and predictive analytics. In comparison, Blueliv Threat Compass is favored for comprehensive features like dark web monitoring and customizable dashboards, making it appealing for those seeking adaptability and extensive threat coverage.
Recorded Future requires a notable setup investment, while Blueliv Threat Compass involves a more moderate initial cost, highlighting a key pricing disparity.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires a notable setup investment, while Blueliv Threat Compass involves a more moderate initial cost, highlighting a key pricing disparity.
Recorded Future Logo
VulnCheck
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
VulnCheck
1 out of 5
Recorded Future's threat intelligence and real-time updates attract those seeking comprehensive security. In comparison, VulnCheck’s detailed vulnerability assessments and advanced tracking make it invaluable for specialized threats. Recorded Future’s cost-effective pricing contrasts with VulnCheck's premium, feature-rich offering, appealing to distinct buyer needs.
Recorded Future may have a higher setup cost compared to VulnCheck, which offers more budget-friendly initial pricing.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future may have a higher setup cost compared to VulnCheck, which offers more budget-friendly initial pricing.
Recorded Future Logo
Silobreaker
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Silobreaker
1 out of 5
Recorded Future is praised for cost-effectiveness and robust support, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, Silobreaker's advanced features, like media monitoring and data visualization, justify its higher cost, attracting those who prioritize comprehensive capabilities and customization options over initial spending.
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost, while Silobreaker requires a more complex setup process.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost, while Silobreaker requires a more complex setup process.
Recorded Future Logo
Darkinvader
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Darkinvader
1 out of 5
Recorded Future provides advanced threat intelligence and analytics, ideal for organizations seeking detailed insights. In comparison, Darkinvader offers cost-effective solutions with essential features, appealing to businesses needing simplicity and fast implementation. Each product targets different priorities in the cybersecurity market.
Recorded Future presents a straightforward setup cost, whereas Darkinvader's setup cost is characterized by more complexity and potential variability.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future presents a straightforward setup cost, whereas Darkinvader's setup cost is characterized by more complexity and potential variability.
Recorded Future Logo
Constella Dome
4.0 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Constella Dome
4.0 out of 5
Recorded Future enhances cybersecurity with predictive analytics, supporting strong long-term ROI. In comparison, Constella Dome focuses on digital risk protection, requiring a higher investment but offering extensive feature coverage and tailored onboarding. Each product meets different needs, aiding tech buyers in making informed choices.
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with no additional costs, while Constella Dome may require an investment in setup expenses, highlighting the pricing difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with no additional costs, while Constella Dome may require an investment in setup expenses, highlighting the pricing difference between the two solutions.
Recorded Future Logo
Filigran
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Filigran
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in integration and comprehensive threat analysis, appealing to those prioritizing broad coverage. In comparison, Filigran's unique visualization tools and analytical capabilities attract users seeking detailed insights. Both offer distinct benefits, making their choice dependent on specific business needs and deployment preferences.
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost associated with implementation, while Filigran offers a more cost-effective setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost associated with implementation, while Filigran offers a more cost-effective setup.
Recorded Future Logo
GreyNoise
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
GreyNoise
1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers comprehensive threat intelligence for complex needs. In comparison, GreyNoise reduces alert fatigue by focusing on noise filtration. Tech buyers may choose Recorded Future for extensive insights or GreyNoise for cost-effective, immediate alert filtering benefits.
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost for its features, whereas GreyNoise offers more budget-friendly setup pricing.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost for its features, whereas GreyNoise offers more budget-friendly setup pricing.

Related categories

Threat Intelligence Platforms
Digital Risk Protection
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)