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

Recorded Future vs ThreatQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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 (TIP)
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Digital Risk Protection (1st)
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 Recorded Future is 6.7%, down from 16.3% 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 (%)
Recorded Future6.7%
ThreatQ1.8%
Other91.5%
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
 

Featured Reviews

Derek  Lewis - PeerSpot reviewer
Account Manager at Chevron
Continuous threat intelligence has improved brand monitoring and protects against leaked credentials
Some of the areas that need improvement in Recorded Future include email reports that can show unrelated content. Sometimes alerts pop up for articles that have been published years ago but were just recently discovered by Recorded Future. For the browser extension, since the main purpose is to present information regarding IPs, I think it would be best to provide us with an idea of where the IP originates or some additional information about the organization it belongs to. API capabilities in Recorded Future are improving, but there are still some features that are missing and some errors that are hard to handle and understand. The price of Recorded Future is a bit high, especially for smaller teams working on a tight budget, but it is very effective and relatively competitive for large organizations.
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 intel that they were providing us over the emails was very good. If it found any hashtag in our organization's name on the dark web, a rogue IP, or a marketplace, it would send us an email and notify us that this is being mentioned, and if we want, they can take some action."
"I have seen a return on investment as I explained earlier, it reduces the investigation time from days to minutes, and that is the biggest ROI; on a team of ten people that use it, one request can take you from three days to minutes."
"Recorded Future allows me to maintain very accurate alerts."
"The most valuable feature is Recorded Future's protection of exposed customer data on the hardware side."
"Recorded Future has positively impacted my organization by allowing our analysts to work less on doing IOC enrichments."
"The solution is diverse and provides me with a lot of different mechanisms for evaluation."
"The tool can integrate with a lot of security control and proactive protection devices."
"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."
"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

"Lacks sufficient visibility of malware and international APT attacks."
"The customer support is frustrating and not efficient. They always request logs and screenshots that seem irrelevant."
"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."
"There is a semantic oncology dynamic relationship between how the MIGR Tech framework needs more data infusion enrichment capabilities."
"Some advanced intelligence features require additional licensing, which can significantly increase costs."
"Recorded Future is a very expensive solution, and its pricing could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"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

"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."
"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."
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
16%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Educational Organization
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise14
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Recorded Future?
The price of Recorded Future is a bit high, especially for smaller teams working on a tight budget, but it is very effective and relatively competitive for large organizations.
What needs improvement with Recorded Future?
I cannot think of a way that Recorded Future can be improved. I don't have anything to add about the needed improvements, even small things such as interface tweaks or integrations.
What is your primary use case for Recorded Future?
My main use case for Recorded Future is as a threat and vulnerability feed. In relation to my use case with Recorded Future, it is the go-to tool when it comes to checking for third-party issues, a...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

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 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.