Digital risk protection · October 2026 Edition
Recorded Future vs Rapid7 Threat Command
Zero of fourteen models named Recorded Future first on the direct prompt; one named Rapid7 Threat Command. Recorded Future was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Rapid7 Threat Command by seven and Recorded Future carries 35 labels and Rapid7 Threat Command 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share4%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate34%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#7A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels3512A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Recorded Future reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.UpGuard BreachSight was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. UpGuard BreachSight vs Recorded Future · UpGuard BreachSight vs Rapid7 Threat Command · ZeroFox vs Recorded Future
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the digital risk protection page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Recorded FutureFirst choices, of fourteen modelsRapid7 Threat Command
Direct013 against Recorded Future
Paraphrase101 against Recorded Future
Comparative20
Budget-constrained004 against Recorded Future
Scale-constrained10
Negative004 against Recorded Future
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Recorded Future and Rapid7 Threat Command stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | ||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | ||||
| Perplexity Sonar | | |||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | | ||
| Mistral Small | | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | |||
| Kimi K2 | | | ||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | |||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | |||||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | |
Recorded Future Rapid7 Threat Command first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Recorded Future on the left and Rapid7 Threat Command on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Recorded Future and Rapid7 Threat Command stood in it.
Rapid7 Threat Command first, Recorded Future not the choice
1 of 14 modelsRecorded Future was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Perplexity SonarRapid7 Threat Command, UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CybelAngel
Neither was the first choice, one was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Cyble Vision alternatives: BlueVoyant Sky, CrowdStrike Falcon, Rapid7 Threat Command, UpGuard BreachSight
Grok 4.1 FastUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Rapid7 Threat Command, ZeroFox
Mistral SmallUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Kaduu, Recorded Future
Llama 4 MaverickFortra Brand Protection alternatives: Kaduu, Recorded Future, UpGuard BreachSight
Qwen 3.7 FlashRapid7 alternatives: Corvus Logic, Cyberhaven, Recorded Future, ThreatConnect
MiniMax M2.5UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon, Group-IB Digital Risk Protection, Recorded Future, ZeroFox
Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniZeroFox alternatives: Bitsight, Proofpoint Digital Risk Protection, SecurityScorecard, UpGuard BreachSight
Gemini 3.5 FlashSOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence alternatives: Flare, UpGuard BreachSight, ZeroFox
DeepSeek V4 FlashUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Netcraft, Rapid7, SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence, ZeroFox
Kimi K2UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Fortra Brand Protection, ZeroFox
GLM 4.7 FlashXUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Bolster
GPT-6 LunaCybelAngel Core alternatives: Bolster, BrandShield, ZeroFox
Muse Glimmer 30BUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CybelAngel
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Level: the same share of first choices.
Recorded Future0%#8 of 8Rapid7 Threat Command0%#– of 8Mid-marketThe figures above
Recorded Future leads by two points.
Recorded Future4%#5 of 11Rapid7 Threat Command2%#7 of 11Enterprise
Recorded Future leads by seventeen points.
Recorded Future17%#2 of 9Rapid7 Threat Command0%#– of 9What the models said about Recorded Future
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“What to avoid ... Recorded Future: Quote-based, but generally above $10,000/year.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Recorded Future is cited as an example of this trade-off: * Weaknesses: * Limited social media monitoring compared to platforms specializing in brand protection” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“Top-ranked for threat intel and DRP, but complaints include high costs, setup complexity, alert fatigue (less relevant noise), and limited automation” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“Strong threat intelligence integration, excels at contextualizing exposed data, dark web chatter, and threat actor signals.” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · first choice
“If you want deep threat intelligence context (understanding who is attacking and why) → Recorded Future” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“From leaders like Recorded Future (strong intel), ZeroFox (takedowns), Rapid7 (SOC integration).” Grok 4.1 Fast · scale prompt · first choice
What the models said about Rapid7 Threat Command
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.
“the strongest default choice is Rapid7 Threat Command or UpGuard” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
UpGuard BreachSight vs Recorded FutureUpGuard BreachSight vs Rapid7 Threat CommandZeroFox vs Recorded FutureZeroFox vs Rapid7 Threat CommandSOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence vs Recorded FutureSOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence vs Rapid7 Threat CommandBrandShield vs Recorded FutureBrandShield vs Rapid7 Threat CommandRecorded Future vs FlareRecorded Future vs Proofpoint Digital Risk ProtectionFlare vs Rapid7 Threat CommandRapid7 Threat Command vs Proofpoint Digital Risk ProtectionAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full DRP standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.