No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Group-IB Threat Intelligence vs ThreatQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 11, 2024

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

Group-IB Threat Intelligence
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
20th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ThreatQ
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
22nd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (25th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) category, the mindshare of Group-IB Threat Intelligence is 1.9%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatQ is 1.8%, down from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Group-IB Threat Intelligence1.9%
ThreatQ1.8%
Other96.3%
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
 

Featured Reviews

Abdelrahman Hussein - PeerSpot reviewer
CTI & Threat Hunter at Telecom Egypt
Easy to setup, highly stable and scalable and efficiently tracks threat actors and analyze their tactics
We use Group-IB Threat Intelligence to help us with threat hunting, incident response, and vulnerability management We have found the site intelligence features to be the most valuable. We are able to use these features to track threat actors and analyze their tactics, techniques, and procedures…
Yasir Akram - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Engineer at Freelancer
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

"The totality of the recordings is quite important. The networks, the new threat actors, the new methods, tactics, techniques, and procedures."
"Threat Intelligence's best feature is threat activation."
"We have found the site intelligence features to be the most valuable."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the sandbox."
"Threat Intelligence is very stable."
"The most valuable Group-IB Threat Intelligence features are their detections, especially in terms of account and card information leakage. This data sets Group-IB apart from some of the competition."
"The cost of the solution versus the cost of an incident that may have been prevented with it shows a very high ROI."
"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

"As the landscape evolves, they could provide a little more detail or specificity to map it to the MITRE ATT&CK framework."
"The web intelligence could be improved. It is not as good as the intelligence from other solutions."
"The lack of appliance-based or on-premise options for this solution is its biggest downfall. Clients request them often."
"Threat Intelligence's OT security could be improved."
"Group-IB Threat Intelligence should improve integration for SIEM and SOAR solutions."
"The tool is not user-friendly."
"The solution should be simpler for the end-user in terms of reporting and navigating the product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is alright. It's right on the mark."
"Threat Intelligence is costly, but it gives value for money."
"Group-IB Threat Intelligence's pricing is reasonable."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Educational Organization
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Radar, Bitdefender, Crowdstrike, FireEye, IBM Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Group-IB Threat Intelligence vs. ThreatQ and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.