Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
Cisco Threat Grid Logo

Top 10 Cisco Threat Grid Alternatives

Vendor: Cisco
3.8 out of 5
Start review

Top Cisco Threat Grid Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Cisco Threat Grid based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include CrowdStrike Falcon, Recorded Future, and ReversingLabs. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

Cisco Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Cisco, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
Cisco Threat Grid Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
Cisco Threat Grid Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
CrowdStrike Falcon excels in threat intelligence and real-time monitoring for seamless integration. In comparison, Cisco Threat Grid offers detailed malware analysis and sandboxing. CrowdStrike Falcon is ideal for quick integration, while Cisco Threat Grid appeals to those needing deep forensic insights and expert guidance.
Download Cisco Threat Grid vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Report
CrowdStrike Falcon has a higher setup cost compared to Cisco Threat Grid, which offers a more budget-friendly option.
View comparison
Pricing
CrowdStrike Falcon has a higher setup cost compared to Cisco Threat Grid, which offers a more budget-friendly option.
Cisco Threat Grid Logo
Recorded Future
4.2 out of 5
Cisco Threat Grid Logo
Recorded Future
4.2 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.
Cisco Threat Grid Logo
ReversingLabs
4.6 out of 5
Cisco Threat Grid Logo
ReversingLabs
4.6 out of 5
ReversingLabs offers strong data analytics and integrated threat intelligence. In comparison, Cisco Threat Grid excels in automation and integration capabilities. Tech buyers may select ReversingLabs for its detailed insights into malware behavior, while Cisco Threat Grid appeals for its collaborative threat hunting and seamless integration.
Download Cisco Threat Grid vs. ReversingLabs Report
ReversingLabs has a lower initial setup cost compared to Cisco Threat Grid. However, Cisco Threat Grid's setup process is more streamlined and quicker.
View comparison
Pricing
ReversingLabs has a lower initial setup cost compared to Cisco Threat Grid. However, Cisco Threat Grid's setup process is more streamlined and quicker.
Cisco Threat Grid Logo
Cisco Threat Grid Logo
Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence
4.2 out of 5
Cisco Threat Grid excels in advanced analysis and seamless integration, valued for its competitive pricing. In comparison, Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence offers a vast threat database and automated response, worth the higher cost for its scalability and superior customer service.
Download Cisco Threat Grid vs. Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence Report
The setup cost for Cisco Threat Grid is higher compared to the more affordable Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence.
View comparison
Pricing
The setup cost for Cisco Threat Grid is higher compared to the more affordable Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence.
Cisco Threat Grid Logo
Cisco Threat Grid Logo
Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus
3.9 out of 5
Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus excels in threat intelligence and integration with other Palo Alto products. In comparison, Cisco Threat Grid provides advanced malware analysis and automatic updates. AutoFocus requires minimal deployment time, while Threat Grid offers high ROI for complex needs. AutoFocus is cost-effective; Threat Grid is scalable.
Download Cisco Threat Grid vs. Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus Report
Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is known for a higher initial setup cost, while Cisco Threat Grid offers a more flexible and lower-priced setup fee.
View comparison
Pricing
Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus is known for a higher initial setup cost, while Cisco Threat Grid offers a more flexible and lower-priced setup fee.

Related categories

Threat Intelligence Platforms
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)