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
Leave a 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 robust threat intelligence and data mining, benefiting users seeking comprehensive internet monitoring. In comparison, CrowdStrike Falcon excels in endpoint protection and seamless SIEM integration, attracting those prioritizing real-time threat responses and cloud-native attributes. Both solutions offer flexible deployment and strong support.
Download CrowdStrike Falcon vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future typically has a lower setup cost compared to CrowdStrike Falcon, which tends to have a higher initial investment. This difference highlights the contrasting pricing strategies of these cybersecurity solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future typically has a lower setup cost compared to CrowdStrike Falcon, which tends to have a higher initial investment. This difference highlights the contrasting pricing strategies of these cybersecurity solutions.
Recorded Future Logo
VirusTotal
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
VirusTotal
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in threat intelligence with advanced querying and seamless integration, appealing to those seeking a comprehensive platform. In comparison, VirusTotal is preferred for its malware detection and integration with antivirus scanners, ideal for organizations focusing on virus detection and file analysis.
Download Recorded Future vs. VirusTotal Report
Recorded Future requires initial setup fees, while VirusTotal offers a simple direct access without setup costs.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires initial setup fees, while VirusTotal offers a simple direct access without setup costs.
Recorded Future Logo
Cymulate
4.2 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Cymulate
4.2 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in comprehensive threat intelligence with diverse data sources and customizable features, appealing to large enterprises. In comparison, Cymulate integrates seamlessly with user-friendly dashboards and flexible deployment, ideal for validating security posture across organizations with varying branch locations.
Download Cymulate vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup process with competitive initial costs, while Cymulate provides a flexible setup requiring additional investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup process with competitive initial costs, while Cymulate provides a flexible setup requiring additional investment.
Recorded Future Logo
Anomali
3.9 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Anomali
3.9 out of 5
Recorded Future offers accurate, real-time intelligence, ideal for precise threat analysis, and benefits from efficient deployment. In comparison, Anomali excels in integration and customization, providing flexible solutions for complex environments with competitive pricing appealing to dynamic infrastructures.
Download Anomali vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future offers an easier setup process with lower initial costs, whereas Anomali has higher setup costs that might suit specialized requirements better.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers an easier setup process with lower initial costs, whereas Anomali has higher setup costs that might suit specialized requirements better.
Recorded Future Logo
ZeroFOX
4.3 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
ZeroFOX
4.3 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in comprehensive threat intelligence through extensive data integration and analytics. In comparison, ZeroFOX specializes in external digital threat protection, focusing on social media monitoring. A tech buyer might choose Recorded Future for data breadth or ZeroFOX for targeted social threat defense.
Download Recorded Future vs. ZeroFOX Report
Recorded Future requires a significant upfront setup cost, contrasting with ZeroFOX, which has minimal initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires a significant upfront setup cost, contrasting with ZeroFOX, which has minimal initial investment.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System
4.0 out of 5
Recorded Future impresses with its vast threat intelligence and data analysis capabilities, appealing to those prioritizing comprehensive intelligence integration. In comparison, Trend Micro TippingPoint excels in robust network intrusion prevention, attracting buyers seeking effective IPS features integrated with existing security solutions.
Download Recorded Future vs. Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System Report
Recorded Future generally reports lower setup costs while Trend Micro TippingPoint involves more significant initial investment, highlighting a key difference in front-end expenditure.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future generally reports lower setup costs while Trend Micro TippingPoint involves more significant initial investment, highlighting a key difference in front-end expenditure.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP)
4.2 out of 5
Recorded Future is valued for its customizable dashboards and diverse threat insights, excelling in dark web analysis. In comparison, ThreatConnect TIP integrates AI-powered analytics and automation for centralized threat management, appealing to those seeking streamlined operations and collaborative investigation capabilities.
Download Recorded Future vs. ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) Report
Recorded Future offers a transparent setup cost structure, while ThreatConnect's setup cost may vary depending on the specific deployment requirements.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a transparent setup cost structure, while ThreatConnect's setup cost may vary depending on the specific deployment requirements.
Recorded Future Logo
ReversingLabs
4.6 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
ReversingLabs
4.6 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in comprehensive threat analysis, making it ideal for broad threat insights. In comparison, ReversingLabs focuses on advanced malware analysis, offering detailed file intelligence. Tech buyers might choose based on the need for strategic intelligence or specialized forensic depth.
Download Recorded Future vs. ReversingLabs Report
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup process at no additional cost, while ReversingLabs provides a more robust initial infrastructure with a higher setup expense.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup process at no additional cost, while ReversingLabs provides a more robust initial infrastructure with a higher setup expense.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
ReliaQuest GreyMatter
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in real-time threat intelligence, enhancing proactive detection with minimal deployment complexity. In comparison, ReliaQuest GreyMatter offers comprehensive security operations integration across multi-cloud environments. Recorded Future appeals for cost-effective insights, while GreyMatter provides robust features justifying higher initial costs.
Recorded Future requires a higher setup investment compared to ReliaQuest GreyMatter, which offers more competitive initial pricing for budget-conscious users.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires a higher setup investment compared to ReliaQuest GreyMatter, which offers more competitive initial pricing for budget-conscious users.
Recorded Future Logo
Cybersixgill
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Cybersixgill
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future offers comprehensive data insights with strong support, ideal for broad intelligence needs. In comparison, Cybersixgill excels in dark web monitoring, appealing to those prioritizing specialized threat detection. Recorded Future is cost-effective, whereas Cybersixgill delivers high returns through advanced features.
Download Cybersixgill vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future requires a moderate setup cost, while Cybersixgill offers a lower initial investment. This pricing difference highlights the potential cost advantage of Cybersixgill for users prioritizing affordability.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires a moderate setup cost, while Cybersixgill offers a lower initial investment. This pricing difference highlights the potential cost advantage of Cybersixgill for users prioritizing affordability.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Check Point Security Management
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in threat intelligence with dark web investigation support. In comparison, Check Point Security Management offers centralized control and smart console management, ideal for multi-gateway environments. Recorded Future is costly for smaller firms, while Check Point provides good value through comprehensive security features.
Download Check Point Security Management vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future offers transparent setup costs making budgeting straightforward, while Check Point Security Management provides higher initial costs due to their advanced integration capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers transparent setup costs making budgeting straightforward, while Check Point Security Management provides higher initial costs due to their advanced integration capabilities.
Recorded Future Logo
CyberInt Argos
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
CyberInt Argos
1 out of 5
Recorded Future delivers real-time threat intelligence with extensive data analytics, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, CyberInt Argos provides advanced threat detection and integration capabilities, offering superior protection and justifying a higher investment for businesses that need comprehensive security frameworks and customized support.
Recorded Future involves a relatively higher setup cost, whereas CyberInt Argos presents a more budget-friendly option, highlighting a clear cost disparity between the two.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future involves a relatively higher setup cost, whereas CyberInt Argos presents a more budget-friendly option, highlighting a clear cost disparity between the two.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence
1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers real-time threat analysis and integration capabilities, appealing to those prioritizing integration. In comparison, SOCRadar emphasizes customizable alerts and affordability, suitable for organizations valuing flexibility. Tech buyers might choose Recorded Future for its deployment ease or SOCRadar for its responsive service.
Recorded Future requires a higher initial setup cost, while SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence offers a lower cost for setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires a higher initial setup cost, while SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence offers a lower cost for setup.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Group-IB Threat Intelligence
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in data processing and global threat analysis, appealing to users prioritizing strategic insights. In comparison, Group-IB's advanced investigation tools and cybercrime prevention focus attract those seeking depth in investigative capacities, despite higher setup costs and a comprehensive support structure.
Download Group-IB Threat Intelligence vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost, offering extensive features, while Group-IB Threat Intelligence offers a more economical entry point. The distinct pricing strategies highlight their focus on different customer segments and feature offerings.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost, offering extensive features, while Group-IB Threat Intelligence offers a more economical entry point. The distinct pricing strategies highlight their focus on different customer segments and feature offerings.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Flashpoint Intelligence Platform
3.0 out of 5
Recorded Future offers extensive data coverage and advanced analytics for predictive threat intelligence. In comparison, Flashpoint focuses on delivering targeted intelligence with in-depth threat actor profiles and superior customer service, making it ideal for specialized needs and efficient deployment.
Recorded Future has a moderate setup cost, while Flashpoint Intelligence Platform offers a more cost-efficient initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a moderate setup cost, while Flashpoint Intelligence Platform offers a more cost-efficient initial setup.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Tenable One Exposure Management Platform
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future, with competitive pricing and strong integration capabilities, attracts tech buyers focused on threat intelligence. In comparison, Tenable One offers superior functionality and scalability, appealing to enterprises seeking comprehensive exposure management and willing to invest in extensive security solutions.
Download Recorded Future vs. Tenable One Exposure Management Platform Report
Recorded Future has an accessible setup cost, making it an attractive choice for budget-conscious organizations, while Tenable One Exposure Management Platform offers a higher initial investment that may suit companies seeking a comprehensive security strategy.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has an accessible setup cost, making it an attractive choice for budget-conscious organizations, while Tenable One Exposure Management Platform offers a higher initial investment that may suit companies seeking a comprehensive security strategy.
Recorded Future Logo
CloudSEK XVigil
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
CloudSEK XVigil
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels with extensive data and real-time threat detection, appealing to security-focused enterprises. In comparison, CloudSEK XVigil targets specific industries with strong prediction capabilities, making it attractive for niche markets seeking targeted intelligence.
Recorded Future's setup cost is higher, reflecting its advanced capabilities, while CloudSEK XVigil offers a more budget-friendly option with lower initial expenses, appealing to cost-conscious users.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup cost is higher, reflecting its advanced capabilities, while CloudSEK XVigil offers a more budget-friendly option with lower initial expenses, appealing to cost-conscious users.
Recorded Future Logo
ThreatQ
3.5 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
ThreatQ
3.5 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in data enrichment and analytics for actionable threat insights. In comparison, ThreatQ provides extensive integration and customization options, appealing to organizations prioritizing adaptability. Tech buyers may choose Recorded Future for its intelligence capabilities or ThreatQ for its flexible integrations.
Download Recorded Future vs. ThreatQ Report
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost, while ThreatQ requires a more customized setup approach, leading to potentially higher initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost, while ThreatQ requires a more customized setup approach, leading to potentially higher initial expenses.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus
3.7 out of 5
Recorded Future offers comprehensive threat landscape insights appealing to businesses seeking broad analysis, while Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus excels in seamless integration with existing systems. In comparison, Recorded Future provides cost-effective data accuracy, whereas AutoFocus delivers strategic value through its integration capabilities.
Download Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future has an accessible setup cost, making it appealing for cost-conscious users, whereas Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus requires a higher investment, reflecting its advanced capabilities and extensive feature set.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has an accessible setup cost, making it appealing for cost-conscious users, whereas Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus requires a higher investment, reflecting its advanced capabilities and extensive feature set.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
IBM X-Force Exchange
4.1 out of 5
Recorded Future enhances cybersecurity with real-time analytics and intuitive dashboards. In comparison, IBM X-Force Exchange offers robust integration with extensive sharing capabilities, making it suitable for organizations focused on collaboration, despite a more complex deployment process. Each platform addresses different operational priorities effectively.
Download IBM X-Force Exchange vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future's setup costs are transparent and competitive, while IBM X-Force Exchange often incurs higher initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup costs are transparent and competitive, while IBM X-Force Exchange often incurs higher initial expenses.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Fortinet FortiRecon
4.0 out of 5
Recorded Future offers real-time intelligence and extensive threat data, attracting users needing rapid deployment. In comparison, Fortinet FortiRecon’s robust detection and holistic security solutions appeal to those seeking comprehensive integrations and advanced analytics, justifying its higher cost with significant ROI.
Download Fortinet FortiRecon vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future offers a more flexible setup cost, while Fortinet FortiRecon has a straightforward, potentially higher initial cost.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a more flexible setup cost, while Fortinet FortiRecon has a straightforward, potentially higher initial cost.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Fortra's PhishLabs Threat Intelligence
1 out of 5
Recorded Future provides comprehensive analytics and real-time threat detection, enhancing cybersecurity strategies. In comparison, Fortra's PhishLabs offers advanced phishing analysis and proactive takedown capabilities. Recorded Future's broader intelligence insights attract tech buyers, while Fortra's specialized phishing defense appeals to those prioritizing targeted protection.
Recorded Future's setup cost is notably higher than Fortra's PhishLabs Threat Intelligence, highlighting a significant pricing difference in their threat intelligence solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup cost is notably higher than Fortra's PhishLabs Threat Intelligence, highlighting a significant pricing difference in their threat intelligence solutions.
Recorded Future Logo
Digital Shadows
3.3 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Digital Shadows
3.3 out of 5
Digital Shadows excels in support and cost-effectiveness, attracting budget-conscious buyers with its focus on digital risk and brand protection. In comparison, Recorded Future offers expansive features with predictive analytics, appealing to those prioritizing comprehensive threat intelligence and deeper data insights.
Download Digital Shadows vs. Recorded Future Report
Digital Shadows requires an initial setup cost that is higher compared to Recorded Future, which offers a more cost-effective entry point.
View comparison
Pricing
Digital Shadows requires an initial setup cost that is higher compared to Recorded Future, which offers a more cost-effective entry point.
Recorded Future Logo
Intel 471
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Intel 471
1 out of 5
Recorded Future shines with its robust feature set and integration capabilities. In comparison, Intel 471 offers streamlined deployment and real-time monitoring. Recorded Future appeals to those seeking comprehensive data analytics, while Intel 471 attracts buyers prioritizing quick deployment and tactical insights.
Recorded Future's setup cost is generally higher, providing extensive threat intelligence features, while Intel 471 offers a more budget-friendly setup with essential cybersecurity insights.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup cost is generally higher, providing extensive threat intelligence features, while Intel 471 offers a more budget-friendly setup with essential cybersecurity insights.
Recorded Future Logo
Cisco Threat Grid
3.8 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Cisco Threat Grid
3.8 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in real-time threat intelligence and ease of deployment, appealing to those seeking quick integration. In comparison, Cisco Threat Grid provides superior malware analysis with deep sandboxing, suitable for users favoring advanced features despite a higher initial investment.
Download Cisco Threat Grid vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup cost with transparent pricing, whereas Cisco Threat Grid provides a flexible setup cost structure adaptable to organizational needs.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup cost with transparent pricing, whereas Cisco Threat Grid provides a flexible setup cost structure adaptable to organizational needs.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Services
3.5 out of 5
Recorded Future highlights machine learning and open web data, appealing to those prioritizing integration and cost. In comparison, Kaspersky's extensive malware research and analytics cater to those desiring in-depth threat analysis, excelling through comprehensive reports despite higher costs.
Download Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Services vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup at a higher initial cost, whereas Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Services provides a more cost-effective setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup at a higher initial cost, whereas Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Services provides a more cost-effective setup option.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Fortinet FortiGuard
4.1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in real-time threat intelligence and easy integration, appealing to those prioritizing insights. In comparison, Fortinet FortiGuard emphasizes comprehensive security features ideal for organizations seeking extensive protection with a balanced cost-benefit, despite a potentially complex setup.
Download Fortinet FortiGuard vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future has a relatively straightforward setup process with minimal costs, while Fortinet FortiGuard may involve complex setup leading to higher initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a relatively straightforward setup process with minimal costs, while Fortinet FortiGuard may involve complex setup leading to higher initial expenses.
Recorded Future Logo
Flare
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Flare
1 out of 5
Recorded Future's comprehensive data collection offers budget-friendly solutions, attracting cost-conscious buyers seeking robust support. In comparison, Flare's innovative predictive capabilities and ease of deployment appeal to those prioritizing advanced analytics and rapid implementation, despite potentially higher costs.
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with minimal initial costs, while Flare requires a higher upfront investment. These differences highlight distinct pricing strategies which may influence budget considerations.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with minimal initial costs, while Flare requires a higher upfront investment. These differences highlight distinct pricing strategies which may influence budget considerations.
Recorded Future Logo
IntSights
4.5 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
IntSights
4.5 out of 5
Recorded Future excels with robust threat intelligence and data tools. In comparison, IntSights emphasizes ease of integration and connectivity. Tech buyers might prefer Recorded Future for analytics or choose IntSights for its flexible pricing and agile integration capabilities.
Recorded Future generally has a higher setup cost compared to IntSights, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future generally has a higher setup cost compared to IntSights, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
Recorded Future Logo
KELA Cyber
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
KELA Cyber
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in threat analytics, automation, and integration, enhancing decision-making. In comparison, KELA Cyber provides high-caliber dark web monitoring and actionable alerts, appealing to those needing in-depth threat intelligence. Recorded Future's pricing offers ROI, while KELA Cyber's specialized focus delivers high-value insights.
Recorded Future offers a lower setup cost, while KELA Cyber requires a higher initial investment, highlighting distinct budgetary considerations.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a lower setup cost, while KELA Cyber requires a higher initial investment, highlighting distinct budgetary considerations.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Cognyte Threat Intelligence Analytics
1 out of 5
Recorded Future enhances threat detection with predictive analytics and real-time data. In comparison, Cognyte provides comprehensive threat insights through advanced intelligence feeds and data integration. Recorded Future offers straightforward deployment and strong support, while Cognyte's customizable setup provides long-term value despite higher initial costs.
Recorded Future requires upfront costs for setup, while Cognyte Threat Intelligence Analytics has more flexible initial pricing options, highlighting a key difference in the financial outlay for potential users.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires upfront costs for setup, while Cognyte Threat Intelligence Analytics has more flexible initial pricing options, highlighting a key difference in the financial outlay for potential users.
Recorded Future Logo
Filigran
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Filigran
1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers comprehensive data analysis features, appealing to those seeking extensive analytics across industries. In comparison, Filigran's niche-specific processing and visualization options attract organizations with specialized needs. Recorded Future provides broad deployment ease, while Filigran offers customized integration for targeted solutions.
Recorded Future entails a higher setup cost, while Filigran offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future entails a higher setup cost, while Filigran offers a more budget-friendly setup option.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Group-IB Digital Risk Protection
4.5 out of 5
Recorded Future is valued for its comprehensive threat analysis through extensive data coverage and intelligence features. In comparison, Group-IB emphasizes security with advanced fraud prevention, drawing those focused on security measures over intelligence.
Recorded Future generally has a higher setup cost than Group-IB Digital Risk Protection, highlighting a significant pricing difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future generally has a higher setup cost than Group-IB Digital Risk Protection, highlighting a significant pricing difference between the two solutions.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Silent Push Platform
1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers extensive threat analysis appealing to cost-conscious buyers, while Silent Push Platform focuses on real-time features. In comparison, Silent Push Platform's ease of deployment and strong support might attract those valuing user experience and advanced features, potentially justifying its higher cost.
Recorded Future has an initial setup cost, which may impact budget considerations, while Silent Push Platform offers a setup cost structure that could be more flexible for businesses.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has an initial setup cost, which may impact budget considerations, while Silent Push Platform offers a setup cost structure that could be more flexible for businesses.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
DomainTools Iris
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in affordability with strong customer support, appealing to budget-conscious organizations. In comparison, DomainTools Iris offers comprehensive features ideal for deep threat analysis, attracting enterprises focused on domain profiling and DNS tracking. Each tool suits different organizational needs based on priorities.
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with minimal costs, whereas DomainTools Iris involves a more complex and costly initialization process.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with minimal costs, whereas DomainTools Iris involves a more complex and costly initialization process.
Recorded Future Logo
Darkinvader
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Darkinvader
1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers comprehensive threat monitoring with extensive data integrations, appealing to organizations needing broad coverage. In comparison, Darkinvader focuses on external threat landscape evaluation, catering to tech buyers with efficient deployment and strong ROI, making it an attractive choice for targeted cybersecurity strategies.
Recorded Future requires a moderate setup cost, making it a suitable choice for those prioritizing cost-efficiency. In contrast, Darkinvader involves a more significant setup cost, indicating a stronger initial investment for robust capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires a moderate setup cost, making it a suitable choice for those prioritizing cost-efficiency. In contrast, Darkinvader involves a more significant setup cost, indicating a stronger initial investment for robust capabilities.
Recorded Future Logo
Silobreaker
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Silobreaker
1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers comprehensive threat analysis with extensive data integration. In comparison, Silobreaker provides niche insights, focusing on visual interpretation and specialized intelligence. Tech buyers might choose Recorded Future for broad analytics or Silobreaker for specific intelligence features and cost-effectiveness.
Recorded Future offers a higher setup cost compared to Silobreaker, making Silobreaker more accessible for budget-conscious users.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a higher setup cost compared to Silobreaker, making Silobreaker more accessible for budget-conscious users.
Recorded Future Logo
GreyNoise
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
GreyNoise
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in threat intelligence and extensive integrations, appealing to those needing comprehensive security. In comparison, GreyNoise minimizes false positives, offering efficiency for organizations seeking cost-effective solutions with simple deployment and quick returns by focusing on real threats without distraction.
Recorded Future requires a significant setup cost, while GreyNoise offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires a significant setup cost, while GreyNoise offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
Recorded Future Logo
Axur
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Axur
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in offering comprehensive threat intelligence with predictive analytics and real-time data, appealing to those requiring detailed threat analysis. In comparison, Axur's focus on digital risk protection with flexible deployment and competitive pricing attracts businesses addressing specific online risks.
Recorded Future has a higher initial setup cost, offering comprehensive features, while Axur presents a more economical setup with focused functionalities.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a higher initial setup cost, offering comprehensive features, while Axur presents a more economical setup with focused functionalities.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Proofpoint ET Intelligence
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels with comprehensive threat analysis and seamless integration, attracting tech buyers seeking quick deployment. In comparison, Proofpoint ET Intelligence requires detailed setup but excels in email threat protection, appealing to those prioritizing email security in high-communication environments.
Recorded Future offers more streamlined setup costs compared to Proofpoint ET Intelligence, allowing for faster onboarding, whereas Proofpoint ET Intelligence requires more extensive setup investment, accommodating greater customization options.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers more streamlined setup costs compared to Proofpoint ET Intelligence, allowing for faster onboarding, whereas Proofpoint ET Intelligence requires more extensive setup investment, accommodating greater customization options.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Blueliv Threat Compass
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in analytics and integration, ideal for comprehensive threat insights. In comparison, Blueliv Threat Compass appeals to budget-conscious buyers with its competitive pricing and niche specialization, providing flexible deployment options for specific threat detection needs.
Recorded Future requires users to navigate a detailed upfront setup process, while Blueliv Threat Compass offers a simpler, more straightforward installation procedure, highlighting a considerable difference between their setup experiences.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires users to navigate a detailed upfront setup process, while Blueliv Threat Compass offers a simpler, more straightforward installation procedure, highlighting a considerable difference between their setup experiences.
Recorded Future Logo
Constella Dome
4.0 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Constella Dome
4.0 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in data analytics and real-time threat intelligence, ideal for broad security insights. In comparison, Constella Dome offers specialized threat detection and digital risk protection, suiting organizations with specific risk priorities. Each product supports unique security needs with tailored deployment options.
Recorded Future has a higher upfront setup cost compared to Constella Dome, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a higher upfront setup cost compared to Constella Dome, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Farsight Security Information Exchange
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels with comprehensive data analytics for extensive threat detection. In comparison, Farsight Security Information Exchange focuses on real-time DNS analysis for immediate threat identification. Recorded Future provides easier integration, while Farsight's cost-effectiveness and DNS expertise appeal for targeted threat solutions.
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup at a reasonable cost, while Farsight Security Information Exchange requires a more intensive initial configuration, resulting in higher setup expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup at a reasonable cost, while Farsight Security Information Exchange requires a more intensive initial configuration, resulting in higher setup expenses.

Related categories

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