Small business▼−4Since September 2026: 4% → 0%, −4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 10 → 114 of 114
4 categories · RankedThreatConnect
132Judge labels
7First choices
44Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
4Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
8% in Threat intel for mid-market buyers
Rank 5 of 119 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
2 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 22% of its 37 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of ThreatConnect →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business126 of 126
0%35 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market5 of 119
8%37 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise3 of 83
4%46 labels
criticized challenger
In threat intel · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading
Standing by category
Every category where a model named ThreatConnect for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat intelligence platforms | Security operations | 8% | 5 of 119 | 22% | 37 | accepted challenger | ▲+5Since September 2026: 4% → 9%, +5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Cyber risk quantification | Security operations | 0% | 107 of 116 | 50% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by CyberSaint CyberStrong at 25% | |
| Digital risk protection | Security operations | 0% | 36 of 86 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by UpGuard BreachSight at 22% | |
| SOAR platforms | Security operations | 0% | 23 of 67 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Tines at 41% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, ThreatConnect held within the floor in all four categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Threat intel · by segment
Mid-market▲+5Since September 2026: 4% → 9%, +5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
9%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 6 pointsRank 10 → 4 of 111
Enterprise▲+2Since September 2026: 2% → 5%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
5%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 6 → 3 of 78
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat intel | 4% | 9% | ▲+5Since September 2026: 4% → 9%, +5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 10 → 5 of 119 |
| Cyber risk quant | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 107 of 116, unchanged |
| DRP | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 36 of 86, unchanged |
| SOAR | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 23 of 67, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated ThreatConnect across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated ThreatConnect across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Kimi K2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
By framing
Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.
FramingLabels by classFirst choices
Direct25 labels2
Paraphrase17 labels3
Comparative37 labels2not counted in share
Budget-constrained7 labels1
Scale-constrained19 labels1
Negative27 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative132 labels in all, every segment counted; 7 of the 9 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“ThreatConnect is the safest strategic bet due to its flexibility and ability to scale with your headcount” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Threat intel · direct prompt · first choice
“The Best Overall Platform: ThreatConnect ... widely considered the "sweet spot" for the mid-market” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Threat intel · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend starting with SOCRadar or ThreatConnect based on your specific needs” Kimi K2 · Threat intel · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Evaluate Anomali or ThreatConnect's mid-market tiers” Kimi K2 · Threat intel · scale prompt · first choice
And against it
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“Verdict: Avoid enterprise-heavy versions unless your team is growing rapidly and has dedicated technical resources” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Threat intel · negative prompt · hard negative
“avoid Recorded Future, Mandiant, ThreatConnect, and Anomali unless you have a specific need” Mistral Small · Threat intel · negative prompt · hard negative
“Enterprise-grade, heavy-duty TIPs (such as ThreatConnect or ThreatQuotient) require dedicated staff to manage and are usually overkill.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Threat intel · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Before evaluating dedicated, standalone TIPs (like ThreatConnect or Anomali)... Organizations with a highly mature SOC and a budget” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Threat intel · scale prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ThreatConnect, over the 132 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ThreatConnect was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ThreatConnect, over the 132 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ThreatConnect was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.
What carried it into the answer
The sites and pages cited by the answers that named ThreatConnect. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 126 of the 132 answers that named ThreatConnect and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
upguard.com59
analyticsinsight.net44
it-ai-index.com42
bitsight.com37
underdefense.com37
vectra.ai36
esecurityplanet.com35
recordedfuture.com35
cyware.com32
learn.g2.com32
389 of the 389 domain citations in answers naming ThreatConnect came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
threatconnect.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ThreatConnect takes 8% of first choices and MISP takes 12%.ShowHide
Search and answers
threatconnect.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ThreatConnect takes 8% of first choices and MISP takes 12%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “threat intelligence platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “threat intelligence platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 1,000 a month (“threatconnect”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 24 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 1,436 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 404 · 18 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 2,956
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
8%
rank 5 of 119 in threat intel
Segment leader
12%
MISP
- First choices
- 7 across its categories
- Named in
- 132 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 126 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on threatconnect.com
1,621
subdomains included
Content
961
counted in the table below
Documentation
3
Product · Integration
46 · 20
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 463 | 0 | 2025-09-02 | TPRM, APM | |
| News or press | 153 | 0 | 2024-03-05 | ||
| Conference or event | 73 | 7 | 2026-09-23 | ||
| Case study | 66 | 0 | 2024-03-12 | ||
| Podcast or video | 59 | 0 | 2024-08-06 | ||
| Report or ebook | 58 | 0 | 2025-03-31 | TPRM | |
| Webinar or virtual event | 49 | 0 | 2025-09-04 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 30 | 0 | 2026-04-29 | ||
| Template or tool | 6 | 1 | 2026-08-26 | ||
| Comparison | 4 | 0 | 2025-09-23 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-23It sa expo and congress conference or event
- 2026-09-17Dataminr at iacp conference or event
- 2026-09-14Cybercon 2026 conference or event
- 2026-09-03Sector 2026 conference or event
- 2026-08-31Ctem threat led vs asset led conference or event
- 2026-08-26Dataminr 2026 u s midterm election security checklist template or tool
Events in person
Last twelve months
- October 7, 2026 to October 8, 2026Meet Dataminr at Booth 525Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Toronto · exhibited
- October 7, 2026Customer & Prospect DinnerHarbour Sixty · hosted
- October 6, 2026 to October 8, 2026SecTor 2026Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Toronto · exhibited
- August 27, 2026UNGA 2026 Coordination EventOne World Trade Center, New York, US · hosted
- May 21, 2026SecureWorld South Florida 2026Margaritaville Hollywood Beach Resort, Hollywood · hosted
As the event pages on threatconnect.com state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page threatconnect.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as ThreatConnect
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as ThreatConnect; a claim can dispute any of them.
ThreatConnect (by Dataminr) 1ThreatConnect + Polarity 1
Follow ThreatConnect
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
ThreatConnect is its own company.ShowHide
The company
ThreatConnect is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Fusing Internal and External Data for the Next Generation of AI-Powered Event, Threat & Risk Intelligence
- Not stated on the pages read
- Who it is for, price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What ThreatConnect's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: threatconnect.com. A claimed page can correct any of them.
Is this your product?
Claim this page
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when ThreatConnect's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as ThreatConnect, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for ThreatConnect by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where ThreatConnect is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name ThreatConnect, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.