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
778 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, Anomali, and VirusTotal. 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 a robust threat intelligence platform with integration capabilities and automated alerts. In comparison, CrowdStrike Falcon excels in endpoint protection with real-time detection. Tech buyers may choose Recorded Future for threat intelligence, while others might select CrowdStrike Falcon for endpoint security.
Download CrowdStrike Falcon vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future's setup cost is lower compared to CrowdStrike Falcon, which may appeal to budget-conscious businesses, while CrowdStrike Falcon justifies its higher setup cost with comprehensive security features, catering to enterprises requiring advanced capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup cost is lower compared to CrowdStrike Falcon, which may appeal to budget-conscious businesses, while CrowdStrike Falcon justifies its higher setup cost with comprehensive security features, catering to enterprises requiring advanced capabilities.
Recorded Future Logo
Anomali
3.5 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Anomali
3.5 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
VirusTotal
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
VirusTotal
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in threat intelligence with customization and integration options, while VirusTotal focuses on malware detection and analysis with broad scanner integration. In comparison, VirusTotal prioritizes flexible pricing and accessibility, whereas Recorded Future targets enterprise-level needs with customizable features.
Download Recorded Future vs. VirusTotal Report
Recorded Future presents a higher initial setup cost compared to VirusTotal, highlighting a significant pricing difference that potential users should consider when evaluating these cybersecurity solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future presents a higher initial setup cost compared to VirusTotal, highlighting a significant pricing difference that potential users should consider when evaluating these cybersecurity solutions.
Recorded Future Logo
Cymulate
4.3 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Cymulate
4.3 out of 5
Recorded Future provides comprehensive threat intelligence with real-time insights, ideal for proactive threat monitoring. In comparison, Cymulate excels in breach and attack simulation, offering proactive security posture assessments. Cymulate's feature-rich tools justify the cost for enhanced vulnerability testing.
Download Cymulate vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup cost that simplifies initial deployment, while Cymulate presents a scalable setup cost allowing flexibility as needs evolve.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup cost that simplifies initial deployment, while Cymulate presents a scalable setup cost allowing flexibility as needs evolve.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP)
4.2 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in predictive intelligence and comprehensive threat analytics, making it ideal for threat anticipation. In comparison, ThreatConnect TIP offers superior integration and collaborative features, appealing to organizations prioritizing connectivity and shared threat intelligence. Recorded Future's efficient deployment and pricing balance enhance its attractiveness.
Download Recorded Future vs. ThreatConnect Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) Report
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup process, while ThreatConnect offers a more complex setup, which may require additional time and resources.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup process, while ThreatConnect offers a more complex setup, which may require additional time and resources.
Recorded Future Logo
ZeroFOX
4.0 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
ZeroFOX
4.0 out of 5
Recorded Future offers comprehensive analytics ideal for advanced threat insights. In comparison, ZeroFOX excels in social media protection, appealing to organizations prioritizing digital channels. Tech buyers might choose Recorded Future for analytics or ZeroFOX for specialized social media threat protection.
Download Recorded Future vs. ZeroFOX Report
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with minimal costs, while ZeroFOX may require a more involved process with higher initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with minimal costs, while ZeroFOX may require a more involved process with higher initial expenses.
Recorded Future Logo
ReversingLabs
4.6 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
ReversingLabs
4.6 out of 5
Recorded Future offers real-time threat alerts and quick deployment, appealing to those prioritizing intelligence aggregation. In comparison, ReversingLabs provides advanced malware analysis and binary inspection, suited for organizations needing in-depth threat investigation despite a more intensive setup and potentially higher costs.
Download Recorded Future vs. ReversingLabs Report
Recorded Future's setup cost is competitive, while ReversingLabs offers a more approachable pricing structure for budget-conscious users.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup cost is competitive, while ReversingLabs offers a more approachable pricing structure for budget-conscious users.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence
4.2 out of 5
Recorded Future provides robust threat intelligence with features like dark web detection and customization, ideal for large enterprises. In comparison, Microsoft Defender integrates seamlessly with Microsoft environments, offering strong global threat data and cost-effective options for companies already using Microsoft products.
Download Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost compared to Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, highlighting an upfront pricing difference. Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence offers a more budget-friendly setup option than Recorded Future.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost compared to Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, highlighting an upfront pricing difference. Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence offers a more budget-friendly setup option than Recorded Future.
Recorded Future Logo
Cybersixgill
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Cybersixgill
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in pricing and real-time data collection, offering seamless integration for efficient threat management. In comparison, Cybersixgill provides in-depth dark web monitoring with advanced analytics, necessitating a higher initial investment for comprehensive insights, making it valuable for thorough threat intelligence.
Download Cybersixgill vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future's setup cost is typically higher, while Cybersixgill offers a more budget-friendly setup option, making them appealing to businesses with different financial constraints.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup cost is typically higher, while Cybersixgill offers a more budget-friendly setup option, making them appealing to businesses with different financial constraints.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Group-IB Threat Intelligence
4.4 out of 5
Recorded Future offers comprehensive data-driven insights and real-time monitoring. In comparison, Group-IB Threat Intelligence emphasizes deep threat analysis and incident response. Recorded Future integrates extensively with security tools, while Group-IB's advanced features appeal to those needing detailed forensic capabilities.
Download Group-IB Threat Intelligence vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost structure, whereas Group-IB Threat Intelligence offers more customized pricing options based on specific needs.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a straightforward setup cost structure, whereas Group-IB Threat Intelligence offers more customized pricing options based on specific needs.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus
3.9 out of 5
Recorded Future is favored for cost-effectiveness and broad threat intelligence capabilities. In comparison, Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus excels in advanced threat correlation and seamless integration, offering value through feature richness. Buyers weigh Recorded Future's pricing against AutoFocus's robust features and ecosystem benefits.
Download Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future incurs higher setup costs compared to Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus, which offers a more cost-effective setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future incurs higher setup costs compared to Palo Alto Networks AutoFocus, which offers a more cost-effective setup.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
IBM X-Force Exchange
4.1 out of 5
Recorded Future enhances threat detection through predictive analytics and wide data access. In comparison, IBM X-Force Exchange excels with its threat library and strong information sharing. Recorded Future's flexible pricing offers adaptability, while IBM's ease of deployment ensures swift setup.
Download IBM X-Force Exchange vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future requires an initial setup cost, while IBM X-Force Exchange offers a more straightforward setup with limited upfront expenses, highlighting a notable difference in implementation and pricing strategy.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future requires an initial setup cost, while IBM X-Force Exchange offers a more straightforward setup with limited upfront expenses, highlighting a notable difference in implementation and pricing strategy.
Recorded Future Logo
CyberInt Argos
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
CyberInt Argos
1 out of 5
Recorded Future provides comprehensive threat intelligence with real-time insights, appealing for budget-conscious buyers with its accessible pricing. In comparison, CyberInt Argos shines in digital risk protection and brand safety, offering behavior analytics and superior customer service despite higher initial costs.
Recorded Future has a lower setup cost compared to CyberInt Argos, highlighting a more budget-friendly option for initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a lower setup cost compared to CyberInt Argos, highlighting a more budget-friendly option for initial expenses.
Recorded Future Logo
ThreatQ
3.5 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
ThreatQ
3.5 out of 5
Recorded Future offers real-time threat intelligence updates with extensive data, enhancing situational awareness. In comparison, ThreatQ excels with flexible architecture and integration capabilities, enabling customization. Recorded Future's cloud deployment is simplified, while ThreatQ's deeper customization demands more efforts but offers greater integration potential.
Download Recorded Future vs. ThreatQ Report
Recorded Future offers a more streamlined setup process, while ThreatQ requires a more complex initial configuration.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a more streamlined setup process, while ThreatQ requires a more complex initial configuration.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Flashpoint Intelligence Platform
3.0 out of 5
Recorded Future appeals with a customizable and cost-effective platform that's easy to deploy, offering broad data integration capabilities. In comparison, Flashpoint stands out with advanced dark web monitoring and specialized intelligence, though it requires more resources for setup and a higher initial investment.
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with minimal initial costs, whereas Flashpoint Intelligence Platform may involve higher setup expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with minimal initial costs, whereas Flashpoint Intelligence Platform may involve higher setup expenses.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Tenable One Exposure Management Platform
4.5 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in providing advanced threat intelligence capabilities. In comparison, Tenable One offers a comprehensive approach to vulnerability management. Tech buyers might choose Recorded Future for its real-time insights, while Tenable One attracts those seeking extensive exposure management features.
Download Recorded Future vs. Tenable One Exposure Management Platform Report
Recorded Future's setup cost is perceived as straightforward and manageable, while Tenable One Exposure Management Platform presents higher initial costs, reflecting different approaches to cost management and budget considerations between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup cost is perceived as straightforward and manageable, while Tenable One Exposure Management Platform presents higher initial costs, reflecting different approaches to cost management and budget considerations between the two solutions.
Recorded Future Logo
Intel 471
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Intel 471
1 out of 5
Recorded Future, with its real-time threat data and automation, suits entities seeking expansive security solutions. In comparison, Intel 471, focusing on dark web and cybercrime intelligence, is ideal for businesses needing specialized, high-quality insights tailored to niche cybersecurity threats.
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with transparent costs, while Intel 471 presents a more complex setup process with varying setup fees.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with transparent costs, while Intel 471 presents a more complex setup process with varying setup fees.
Recorded Future Logo
IntSights
4.5 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
IntSights
4.5 out of 5
Recorded Future offers extensive data analytics and smooth deployment, appealing to buyers focused on predictive insights and cost-efficiency. In comparison, IntSights provides superior threat intelligence and personalized customer service, making it ideal for those valuing comprehensive threat assessment and advanced threat prevention features.
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost, while IntSights offers a more affordable initial setup fee, making IntSights a cost-effective choice.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost, while IntSights offers a more affordable initial setup fee, making IntSights a cost-effective choice.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Fortra's PhishLabs Threat Intelligence
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in comprehensive data analytics and predictive intelligence, providing broader insights. In comparison, Fortra's PhishLabs focuses on phishing threat detection and remediation, offering streamlined deployment and quick return on investment, appealing to organizations prioritizing phishing threat resolution over expansive threat intelligence.
Recorded Future has no setup costs, offering simplicity, while Fortra's PhishLabs incurs a moderate initial setup fee.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has no setup costs, offering simplicity, while Fortra's PhishLabs incurs a moderate initial setup fee.
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 threat intelligence with robust analytics, ideal for seamless integration. In comparison, Cisco Threat Grid offers superior malware analysis and automated threat detection, suitable for those valuing advanced features despite a more complex setup and higher initial investment.
Download Cisco Threat Grid vs. Recorded Future Report
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost, offering extensive features and intelligence data, whereas Cisco Threat Grid presents a more budget-friendly option with efficient malware analysis tools.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost, offering extensive features and intelligence data, whereas Cisco Threat Grid presents a more budget-friendly option with efficient malware analysis tools.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Cognyte Threat Intelligence Analytics
1 out of 5
Recorded Future provides extensive threat data and intuitive analysis, ideal for real-time insights. In comparison, Cognyte offers robust investigative tools and customizable deployment, appealing to those prioritizing in-depth analysis. Recorded Future suits buyers seeking cost-effectiveness, while Cognyte attracts those valuing detailed threat reports.
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with transparent costs, while Cognyte Threat Intelligence Analytics may involve more complex setup fees.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future offers a straightforward setup with transparent costs, while Cognyte Threat Intelligence Analytics may involve more complex setup fees.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in automated data analytics, providing real-time threat detection and ensuring ease of deployment with strong support. In comparison, SOCRadar stands out with its user-friendly analytics, extensive threat visualization, and flexible deployment, highlighting adaptability and cost-effectiveness.
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost, while SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence offers a more affordable setup option, highlighting a key difference in their initial investment requirements.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a higher setup cost, while SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence offers a more affordable setup option, highlighting a key difference in their initial investment requirements.
Recorded Future Logo
KELA Cyber
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
KELA Cyber
1 out of 5
Recorded Future offers superior threat analysis with broad data coverage, ideal for organizations needing comprehensive insights. In comparison, KELA Cyber focuses on dark web monitoring and actionable intelligence, appealing to those requiring specialized, context-based intelligence and affordable upfront costs.
Recorded Future has a competitive setup cost aimed at enterprises, while KELA Cyber offers a streamlined and lower-cost setup process. Differences in setup costs highlight distinct target audiences and budgeting considerations.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future has a competitive setup cost aimed at enterprises, while KELA Cyber offers a streamlined and lower-cost setup process. Differences in setup costs highlight distinct target audiences and budgeting considerations.
Recorded Future Logo
Recorded Future Logo
Blueliv Threat Compass
1 out of 5
Recorded Future excels in integration and real-time threat intelligence, appealing to organizations needing extensive threat data and seamless security tool integration. In comparison, Blueliv Threat Compass attracts businesses with its advanced threat detection and budget-friendly comprehensive coverage of cyber threat actors.
Recorded Future's setup cost often ranks higher due to its extensive threat intelligence capabilities, while Blueliv Threat Compass generally offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to organizations mindful of budget constraints without sacrificing essential functionality.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future's setup cost often ranks higher due to its extensive threat intelligence capabilities, while Blueliv Threat Compass generally offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to organizations mindful of budget constraints without sacrificing essential functionality.
Recorded Future Logo
Darkinvader
1 out of 5
Recorded Future Logo
Darkinvader
1 out of 5
Recorded Future impresses with real-time threat intelligence and ease of deployment, appealing to those prioritizing speed and integration. In comparison, Darkinvader’s extensive threat analysis and advanced features cater to buyers seeking comprehensive security solutions despite higher setup complexity and costs.
Recorded Future incurs a moderate setup cost, while Darkinvader offers a lower initial expense, highlighting a significant cost difference.
View comparison
Pricing
Recorded Future incurs a moderate setup cost, while Darkinvader offers a lower initial expense, highlighting a significant cost difference.

Related categories

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