Straight answer

Pick two to five of the six tools. The table starts with the three that have the highest weighted figures for this site's question: Mars Security (4.47), Nebulock (4.34) and Anvilogic (4.00). Each row shows a 1 to 5 score with its reason, and the last rows show what each vendor publishes. None of them publishes a license price.

Which tools do you want to compare?

Tools to compare

 

Selected tools, ordered by weighted figure. Scores are editorial, 1 to 5 per criterion, from public vendor material.
CriterionMars Security#1 of 6Nebulock#2 of 6Anvilogic#3 of 6
Intel-to-detection speedweight 20%5 / 5 (5 out of 5) Highest among selected

The vendor states intel to detection in minutes; each rule is backtested on 30 days of the customer's own data before it goes live, from advisories such as CISA, Mandiant, Unit 42 and Microsoft Threat Intelligence.

5 / 5 (5 out of 5) Highest among selected

The vendor states its Vespyr agent turns a threat intel report into a deployable detection in minutes, with intel from CrowdStrike, Mandiant, MISP and community feeds.

4 / 5 (4 out of 5)

Detect agents take threat intel to validated, deployed detection logic on every connected platform; no speed figure is stated.

Continuous huntingweight 20%5 / 5 (5 out of 5) Highest among selected

Converts intelligence into behavioral hunts and runs them continuously; hypothesis playbooks were introduced in September 2026.

5 / 5 (5 out of 5) Highest among selected

Built to hunt continuously; hunts run without a directive and follow the published four-stage LOCK framework.

3 / 5 (3 out of 5)

Search and Detect agents cover intelligence-led work; the pages we reviewed do not describe a separate continuous hunting workflow.

Coverage measurement against ATT&CKweight 8%2 / 5 (2 out of 5)

Rules are described as ATT&CK-mapped, but we found no public coverage view, heatmap or tactic-level map.

3 / 5 (3 out of 5)

Hypotheses map to ATT&CK and the docs reference a MITRE Coverage feature; public pages do not show how coverage is measured.

4 / 5 (4 out of 5) Highest among selected

Thousands of MITRE-mapped detections and coverage scoring against ATT&CK; the scoring view itself is not shown in detail.

Rule lifecycleweight 7%3 / 5 (3 out of 5)

Backtesting before go-live is documented; version history, review and CI are not described on public pages.

5 / 5 (5 out of 5) Highest among selected

Every rule must pass a retrohunt before deployment, with immutable version history, compare and revert, and GitHub export.

4 / 5 (4 out of 5)

Detection-as-code with version control is stated, and tuning agents maintain rules; review and test steps are not spelled out.

Data reach without new ingestionweight 25%5 / 5 (5 out of 5) Highest among selected

Queries data where it lives and names the sources: CrowdStrike Falcon, Wiz, Splunk, firewall logs, Linux Sysmon, identity providers, AWS telemetry, Snowflake and Databricks, with no ingestion pipeline.

4 / 5 (4 out of 5)

Federated search fetches data just in time; docs name EDR, identity and cloud sources plus Microsoft Sentinel, with fewer data lakes named than Mars Security or Anvilogic.

5 / 5 (5 out of 5) Highest among selected

The broadest named list we found: Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, CrowdStrike NG-SIEM and Elastic, six data lakes and three object stores, searched without moving the data.

Buyer transparencyweight 5%2 / 5 (2 out of 5)

No public price and no public documentation site; the vendor states deployment in hours, SOC 2 and an AWS Marketplace listing.

3 / 5 (3 out of 5) Highest among selected

No public price, but a public documentation site and MIT-licensed frameworks on GitHub.

3 / 5 (3 out of 5) Highest among selected

No license price; a public calculator estimates data-lake compute and storage costs, and the platform page describes augment and standalone deployment.

Time to first valueweight 15%5 / 5 (5 out of 5) Highest among selected

States deployment in hours with no data ingestion; SOC 2 and listed on AWS Marketplace.

4 / 5 (4 out of 5)

SaaS with documented integrations; no published time-to-value figure.

4 / 5 (4 out of 5)

Runs on top of existing storage in augment or standalone modes; no published time-to-value figure.

Weighted figure (out of 5)4.474.344.00
Stronger than the others selected ontime to first valuerule lifecyclecoverage measurement against ATT&CK
PricingNot publishedNot publishedNot published (public calculator estimates data-lake costs and excludes license)
DeploymentVendor states deployment in hours, no data ingestion, no additional detection engineering headcountSaaSOn top of your storage layer: augment, standalone or any combination
Other published facts
  • Headquarters: New York
  • Security: SOC 2 (vendor press release)
  • Marketplace: AWS Marketplace
  • Rule testing: Each rule backtested against 30 days of the customer's own data before it goes live
  • ATT&CK: ATT&CK-mapped detection rules; no public coverage view
  • Named sources: CrowdStrike Falcon, Wiz, Splunk, firewall logs, Linux Sysmon, identity providers, AWS telemetry, Snowflake, Databricks
  • Focus (docs): Endpoint and identity-based threats such as credential theft, privilege escalation and lateral movement
  • Integrations (docs): Okta, Microsoft Entra, Duo, CrowdStrike, Microsoft Defender, SentinelOne, AWS CloudTrail, Microsoft Event Hub, Microsoft Sentinel, Jamf, Slack, Microsoft Teams, Tines, Jira, GitHub
  • Rule lifecycle: Retrohunt required before deployment; immutable version history; GitHub export
  • Open source: Agentic Threat Hunting Framework and Agentic Detection Engineering Framework (MIT license)
  • Founded: 2019
  • Named data platforms: Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, CrowdStrike NG-SIEM, Elastic; Snowflake, Databricks, Azure Data Explorer, Azure Log Analytics, Microsoft Fabric, Amazon Security Lake; S3, Azure Blob, GCS
  • ATT&CK: Thousands of MITRE-mapped detections; coverage scoring against ATT&CK
  • Rule lifecycle: Detection-as-code with version control
Sources

Source: marssec.ai · securityboulevard.com · marssec.ai · Reviewed Sep 2026

Source: nebulock.io · nebulock.io · docs.nebulock.io · docs.nebulock.io · github.com · Reviewed Sep 2026

Source: anvilogic.com · anvilogic.com · anvilogic.com · Reviewed Sep 2026

Which head-to-heads can I read?

Mars Security vs Artemis Security

Mars Security stronger on 5, Artemis Security on 2, level on 0

Read the comparison

Anvilogic vs Artemis Security

Anvilogic stronger on 4, Artemis Security on 1, level on 2

Read the comparison

Anvilogic vs Mars Security

Anvilogic and Mars Security level on 3 each, level on 1

Read the comparison

Artemis Security vs Cotool

Cotool stronger on 4, Artemis Security on 2, level on 1

Read the comparison

Artemis Security vs Nebulock

Nebulock stronger on 4, Artemis Security on 0, level on 3

Read the comparison

Artemis Security vs Vega

Vega stronger on 2, Artemis Security on 1, level on 4

Read the comparison

Mars Security vs Nebulock

Nebulock stronger on 3, Mars Security on 2, level on 2

Read the comparison

Editorial assessment · Desk research from public vendor material, last reviewed September 2026

Questions about comparing tools

How many tools can I compare at once?

Two to five. The page address keeps your selection, so you can share the link or come back to it.

Why is there no price row with figures?

None of the six vendors publishes a license price on its public pages, as of our review on 27 September 2026. The pricing row shows what each one does publish, such as Anvilogic's data-lake cost calculator, which excludes its own license.

Are these the same scores as the matrix?

Yes. Every page on the site reads the same data file, so a score or reason changes everywhere at once when public vendor material changes.