IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › ThreatQuotient · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

ThreatQuotient

7Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

4 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ThreatQuotient was named 3 times in Threat intel, where NordStellar led with 13%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business110 of 122

under the label threshold

Mid-market100 of 128

under the label threshold

Enterprise34 of 105

under the label threshold

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 ThreatQuotient 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
Threat intelligence platforms	Security operations	0%	100 of 128	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by NordStellar at 13%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for ThreatQuotient yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated ThreatQuotient across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative7 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“ThreatQ allows security teams to build custom scoring criteria” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Threat intel · comparative prompt · alternative

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.

“A traditional TIP (like Anomali, ThreatConnect, or ThreatQuotient) acts as a heavy database” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Threat intel · scale prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as ThreatQuotient, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ThreatQuotient was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Recorded Future5 of 71Not in the top three

Anomali5 of 70Not in the top three

ThreatConnect5 of 70Not in the top three

Cyware4 of 70Not in the top three

OpenCTI4 of 70Not in the top three

MISP3 of 70Not in the top three

CrowdStrike Falcon2 of 71Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender1 of 71Not in the top three

SentinelOne1 of 71Not in the top three

Anomali ThreatStream1 of 70Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. 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 ThreatQuotient. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 2 of the 7 answers that named ThreatQuotient and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cloudsek.com2

securitylisting.com2

2slides.com1

analyticsinsight.net1

anomali.com1

binmile.com1

ciopages.com1

cyble.com1

cyware.com1

digitalstakeout.com1

Twelve of the twelve domain citations in answers naming ThreatQuotient came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

securitylisting.com/articles/evaluate-threat-intel-platform2

lp.threatq.com/rs/619-ADG-031/images/TIP_Buyers_Guide.pdf1

2slides.com/blog/ai-presentation-tools-sso-soc2-compliance-guide1

analyticsinsight.net/cybersecurity/10-best-threat-intelligence-platforms-in-20261

analyticsinsight.net/cybersecurity/best-threat-intelligence-platforms1

anomali.com/blog/best-operational-threat-intelligence-platforms-for-enterprises1

binmile.com/blog/threat-intelligence-platform-implementation1

ciopages.com/buyer-guides/threat-intelligence-platform1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as ThreatQuotient

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as ThreatQuotient; a claim can dispute any of them.

ThreatQuotient (ThreatQ) 1

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 ThreatQuotient'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 ThreatQuotient, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at threatq.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.