In our comparison of Perimeter 81 vs. ThreatConnect, Perimeter 81 is the best option with a higher overall Wheelhouse Score. Wheelhouse Score uses a combination of feature and pricing comparison data, average user ratings, and editorial reviews to score software vendors on a scale of 1-10.
* Vendor does not share prices.
Perimeter 81 assists me in safeguarding the personal and sensitive information of my customers. As someone who deals with such data, this product helps me ensure its security and protection.
The best aspect of Perimeter 81, as experienced by my company, is its flawless performance and speed. So far, I haven't encountered any issues, and everything has been working efficiently. I have no negative feedback to share.
There are no complaints or dislikes to mention at this time. Everything has been functioning well.
For a small team, ThreatConnect proved effective in scaling and managing enterprise threat intelligence and threat hunting capabilities. However, as the complexity of Playbook design and integration increased, the software's potential was hindered, preventing the team from fully maximizing its benefits.
ThreatConnect offered the ability to gather, analyze, enhance, and distribute various types of data related to cybersecurity incidents and indicators of compromise across different customer environments. It allowed for tasks such as uploading a domain name, checking it against threat feeds, and enriching the data with additional information like news articles, reports, attribution, and determining the domain's prevalence across multiple client setups.
One of the drawbacks we encountered was the confusion and lack of proper documentation regarding the Playbooks that facilitated enrichment and integration with third-party tools like SIEM. The visual representation of coding concepts, where blocks were connected to one another, was intended to assist non-programmers in developing their capabilities. In reality, a more code-centric approach to Playbook development would have been more beneficial. We found ourselves with numerous questions and minimal guidance on how to address simple problems that could be easily tackled using Python.
The product solves the problem of remote access by providing a SaaS solution with dedicated access points and IP address allocations. This greatly benefits our organization by ensuring secure and reliable remote access for our team members.
One of the standout features is how quickly and seamlessly we were able to replace our remote access solution during our SOC2 Type II process. Within just 15 minutes, we connected our G-Suite for SSO, implemented access restrictions for our GCP instances, configured IP whitelisting for our main SaaS services, and invited our entire team. The user-friendly native agent has made it easy for both technical and non-technical teams to use without any issues. Additionally, having access points in the specific geo-locations we needed (Israel, EMEA, and US) has greatly improved performance.
There isn't much to dislike, especially after exploring other solutions. However, it would be nice to have additional dashboards, bandwidth tracking, and more granular traffic control within the Perimeter 81 network as our company grows.
Consider this risk management system that offers numerous possibilities for effortless detection of high-risk threats and a platform for record-keeping.
It is convenient for any company to efficiently prioritize potential high-risk issues. Additionally, it simplifies record maintenance, and ThreatConnect facilitates easy threat detection through actionable analysis.
There were no significant issues encountered during the implementation of ThreatConnect, and it even facilitated learning about the tools.
Perimeter 81 assists me in safeguarding the personal and sensitive information of my customers. As someone who deals with such data, this product helps me ensure its security and protection.
The best aspect of Perimeter 81, as experienced by my company, is its flawless performance and speed. So far, I haven't encountered any issues, and everything has been working efficiently. I have no negative feedback to share.
There are no complaints or dislikes to mention at this time. Everything has been functioning well.
The product solves the problem of remote access by providing a SaaS solution with dedicated access points and IP address allocations. This greatly benefits our organization by ensuring secure and reliable remote access for our team members.
One of the standout features is how quickly and seamlessly we were able to replace our remote access solution during our SOC2 Type II process. Within just 15 minutes, we connected our G-Suite for SSO, implemented access restrictions for our GCP instances, configured IP whitelisting for our main SaaS services, and invited our entire team. The user-friendly native agent has made it easy for both technical and non-technical teams to use without any issues. Additionally, having access points in the specific geo-locations we needed (Israel, EMEA, and US) has greatly improved performance.
There isn't much to dislike, especially after exploring other solutions. However, it would be nice to have additional dashboards, bandwidth tracking, and more granular traffic control within the Perimeter 81 network as our company grows.
For a small team, ThreatConnect proved effective in scaling and managing enterprise threat intelligence and threat hunting capabilities. However, as the complexity of Playbook design and integration increased, the software's potential was hindered, preventing the team from fully maximizing its benefits.
ThreatConnect offered the ability to gather, analyze, enhance, and distribute various types of data related to cybersecurity incidents and indicators of compromise across different customer environments. It allowed for tasks such as uploading a domain name, checking it against threat feeds, and enriching the data with additional information like news articles, reports, attribution, and determining the domain's prevalence across multiple client setups.
One of the drawbacks we encountered was the confusion and lack of proper documentation regarding the Playbooks that facilitated enrichment and integration with third-party tools like SIEM. The visual representation of coding concepts, where blocks were connected to one another, was intended to assist non-programmers in developing their capabilities. In reality, a more code-centric approach to Playbook development would have been more beneficial. We found ourselves with numerous questions and minimal guidance on how to address simple problems that could be easily tackled using Python.
Consider this risk management system that offers numerous possibilities for effortless detection of high-risk threats and a platform for record-keeping.
It is convenient for any company to efficiently prioritize potential high-risk issues. Additionally, it simplifies record maintenance, and ThreatConnect facilitates easy threat detection through actionable analysis.
There were no significant issues encountered during the implementation of ThreatConnect, and it even facilitated learning about the tools.
Add suggested to comparison
In our rating and review comparison of Perimeter 81 vs. ThreatConnect, Perimeter 81 has 15 user reviews and ThreatConnect has 2. The average star rating for Perimeter 81 is 4.8 while ThreatConnect has an average rating of 3.5. Perimeter 81 has more positive reviews than ThreatConnect. Comparing Perimeter 81 vs. ThreatConnect reviews, Perimeter 81 has stronger overall reviews.
Perimeter 81 vs. ThreatConnect both offer a strong set of features and functionality including Cybersecurity Features, Cybersecurity Protection Types, Reporting & Analytics, Reminders/Alerts, Workflow Automation, Systems/Administrative, Drag-and-Drop Builders/Designers, Collaboration Tools, Report Management, Customizable Items, Integration Options, Compliance Accreditations, After-Sales Service. In our feature comparison of Perimeter 81 vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect offers more of the most popular features and tools than Perimeter 81.
In our pricing comparison of Perimeter 81 vs. ThreatConnect, ThreatConnect's pricing starts at N/A/month and is more affordable compared to ThreatConnect's starting cost of N/A/month.
Our comparison of Perimeter 81 vs. ThreatConnect shows that ThreatConnect scores higher in usability for ease of use, meets requirements, learning curve, ease of admin. Perimeter 81 scores higher in setup & support, quality of support, but ThreatConnect has the best scores overall for system usability.
Get your personalized recommendations now.
