Index › Security operations › Threat intel › Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud vs Anomali ThreatStream
Threat intelligence platforms · October 2026 Edition
Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud vs Anomali ThreatStream
Four of fourteen models named Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud first on the direct prompt; one named Anomali ThreatStream. Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Anomali ThreatStream by thirteen and Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud carries 54 labels and Anomali ThreatStream 40, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share12%10%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate44%30%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#3A position in a field of 14; printed, not drawn.
Labels5440A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.ThreatConnect was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. MISP vs Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud · MISP vs Anomali ThreatStream · Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud vs SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence
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 threat intelligence platforms 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 Future Intelligence CloudFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAnomali ThreatStream
Direct416 against Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud · 1 against Anomali ThreatStream
Paraphrase345 against Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud
Comparative1001 against Anomali ThreatStream
Budget-constrained003 against Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud · 2 against Anomali ThreatStream
Scale-constrained012 against Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud · 1 against Anomali ThreatStream
Negative108 against Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud · 7 against Anomali ThreatStream
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.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud and Anomali ThreatStream were named in the same answer ninety-seven times, of the 175 answers naming Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud and the 110 naming Anomali ThreatStream. In those answers Anomali ThreatStream took the first choice eight times and Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud thirty-nine.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud and Anomali ThreatStream 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 Intelligence Cloud Anomali ThreatStream first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud on the left and Anomali ThreatStream on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud and Anomali ThreatStream stood in it.
Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud first, Anomali ThreatStream an alternative
4 of 14 modelsAnomali ThreatStream was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud alternatives: CloudSEK, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cyble Vision, Mandiant Threat Intelligence
GPT-5.4 miniRecorded Future Intelligence Cloud alternatives: Anomali ThreatStream, ThreatConnect
GLM 4.7 FlashXRecorded Future Intelligence Cloud, ThreatSearch alternatives: Anomali ThreatStream, ThreatConnect
GPT-6 LunaRecorded Future Intelligence Cloud alternatives: Anomali ThreatStream, ThreatConnect
Anomali ThreatStream first, Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud not the choice
1 of 14 modelsRecorded Future Intelligence Cloud was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Kimi K2Anomali ThreatStream, ThreatConnect alternatives: Google Threat Intelligence, NordStellar
Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Grok 4.1 FastCrowdStrike Falcon Intelligence alternatives: Anomali ThreatStream, Flashpoint Ignite, ManageEngine Log360, Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud, ThreatConnect
DeepSeek V4 FlashCyble Vision, Rapid7 Threat Command alternatives: Anomali ThreatStream, CrowdStrike Falcon, NordStellar, OpenCTI
Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Gemini 3.5 FlashFlare, SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Intelligence, UpGuard
Perplexity SonarSOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence alternatives: Flare, Rapid7 Threat Command, ThreatConnect
Mistral SmallCyble Vision, Rapid7 Threat Command alternatives: UpGuard
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashThreatConnect alternatives: ManageEngine Log360, UpGuard
MiniMax M2.5Rapid7 Threat Command alternatives: ManageEngine Log360, UpGuard
Muse Glimmer 30BUpGuard alternatives: Cyble Vision, ThreatConnect
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
Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud leads by two points.
Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud4%#7 of 14Anomali ThreatStream2%#10 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud leads by two points.
Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud12%#2 of 14Anomali ThreatStream10%#3 of 14Enterprise
Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud leads by sixty-seven points.
Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud73%#1 of 11Anomali ThreatStream6%#2 of 11What the models said about Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Verdict: Avoid if you have a limited budget or require high-volume, automated ingestion into many disparate tools without manual tuning.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · hard negative
“one buyer guide flags "standard" TIPs like Recorded Future as something to avoid in some enterprise-fit comparisons” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · hard negative
“recommended to avoid if you have a limited budget or need high-volume, automated ingestion across many tools” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“For Comprehensive Coverage: If you need to monitor everything from ransomware forums to geopolitical shifts without hiring more analysts, choose Recorded Future.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Best For: Enterprises needing comprehensive, real-time, and automated threat intelligence with broad integration capabilities.” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · first choice
“Recorded Future is the best all-around choice due to its balance of automation, integration, and actionable intelligence” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about Anomali ThreatStream
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Verdict: Avoid unless you are a large enterprise with specific requirements for high-volume, automated ingestion” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid enterprise tools like ThreatQuotient or Anomali ($10K+ annually).” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · hard negative
“Anomali is flagged as enterprise-heavy and may not be the best fit” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“Evaluate Anomali or ThreatConnect's mid-market tiers, or your existing security vendor's intel add-ons.” Kimi K2 · scale prompt · first choice
“Recorded Future (feed) + EclecticIQ Fusion (free) or Anomali (SaaS)” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“I would recommend Anomali or Cyware as the platform” Perplexity Sonar · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
MISP vs Recorded Future Intelligence CloudMISP vs Anomali ThreatStreamRecorded Future Intelligence Cloud vs SOCRadar Extended Threat IntelligenceRecorded Future Intelligence Cloud vs ThreatConnectRecorded Future Intelligence Cloud vs AlienVault OTXRecorded Future Intelligence Cloud vs Cyble VisionRecorded Future Intelligence Cloud vs CrowdStrike Falcon IntelligenceAnomali ThreatStream vs SOCRadar Extended Threat IntelligenceAnomali ThreatStream vs ThreatConnectAnomali ThreatStream vs AlienVault OTXAnomali ThreatStream vs Cyble VisionAnomali ThreatStream vs CrowdStrike Falcon IntelligenceAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full threat intel 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.