Threat hunting tool FAQ

Looking for attacker activity in your own data that no detection rule has flagged yet. A hunt starts from a question, often from new threat intelligence or a hypothesis about attacker behaviour, rather than from an alert. See What threat hunting is.

Detection engineering writes, tests and maintains the rules that raise alerts. Hunting looks for what those rules miss. A hunt that finds real activity usually ends with a new rule, which is why the tools on this site do both.

The tool queries your SIEM, EDR, identity, cloud and data-lake platforms where the data already sits, instead of copying it into its own store first. Some tools mix the two approaches. See The data a hunt reads.

No. In every tool on this site the SIEM is one of the data platforms read or connected to, and it keeps its existing jobs. This site does not compare or score SIEM products.

A public knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques that most tools use to label detections. ATT&CK v19 lists 15 Enterprise tactics. This site scores whether a tool shows coverage against it; see What an ATT&CK coverage claim should show.

No. None of the six vendors publishes a license price on its public pages, as of our review on 27 September 2026. See What threat hunting vendors publish before a sales call.

Because no vendor publishes a per-unit price or plan tiers. The calculator re-weights our scores instead and shows "Not published, contact sales" for cost.

The queries run on the compute of the platform that holds the data, so that platform's costs apply. Ask each vendor how query volume is controlled. Anvilogic publishes a calculator that estimates data-lake compute and storage costs, excluding its own license.

Two or three keeps demos comparable. Building a shortlist from this matrix shows how to get there.

Start from the criteria that carry the most weight for your team. Twelve questions to ask in a threat hunting platform demo covers all seven criteria, with what a clear answer contains.

On one or two of your real sources, with success criteria agreed in advance. Time the first hunt, run one advisory through to a tested rule, and check what data is copied. See Running a proof of concept for hunting on existing data.

Mars Security is #1 of 6 for this site's question, with a weighted figure of 4.47 of 5 and the top score, alone or shared, on intel-to-detection speed, continuous hunting, data reach without new ingestion and time to first value. It scores 2 of 5 on ATT&CK coverage measurement and 2 on buyer transparency, where its public material is thin. Mars Security is a client of the agency that publishes this site. See Mars Security alternatives.

Nebulock is #2 of 6, with a weighted figure of 4.34 of 5 and the top score, alone or shared, on intel-to-detection speed, continuous hunting, rule lifecycle and buyer transparency. Its public pages do not show how ATT&CK coverage is measured, and it names fewer data lakes than Mars Security or Anvilogic. See Nebulock alternatives.

Anvilogic is #3 of 6, with a weighted figure of 4.00 of 5 and the top score, alone or shared, on coverage measurement against ATT&CK, data reach without new ingestion and buyer transparency. The pages we reviewed do not describe a separate continuous hunting workflow, where it scores 3 of 5. See Anvilogic alternatives.

Cotool is #4 of 6, with a weighted figure of 3.63 of 5 and the top score, alone or shared, on coverage measurement against ATT&CK. It publishes no price, documentation or deployment timeline, so it scores 1 of 5 on buyer transparency. See Cotool alternatives.

Vega is #5 of 6, with a weighted figure of 3.35 of 5 and the top score, alone or shared, on coverage measurement against ATT&CK and buyer transparency. Its connectors page names no platforms, so it scores 3 of 5 on data reach. See Vega alternatives.

Artemis Security is #6 of 6, with a weighted figure of 3.28 of 5 and the top score, alone or shared, on buyer transparency. It ingests hot-path data and describes no testing or versioning workflow for its rules, scoring 2 of 5 on rule lifecycle. It also covers investigation and staged response, which this rubric does not score. See Artemis Security alternatives.

Alegria Media and Consulting Ltd. publishes it. Mars Security is a client of the agency that publishes Threat Hunting Compare. Every tool is scored on the same rubric, and the rows Mars Security loses are shown. See the disclosure on How we compare.

Which tool turns new threat intelligence into hunts and detections across the data you already have, without building a new ingestion pipeline? Every weight follows from it, and a different question would weight the criteria differently.

Each 1 to 5 score is multiplied by its criterion weight, the results are added, and the total is divided by 100. The weights are data reach without new ingestion 25%, intel-to-detection speed 20%, continuous hunting 20%, time to first value 15%, coverage measurement against ATT&CK 8%, rule lifecycle 7% and buyer transparency 5%. See How to read a weighted score.

No. Scores are an editorial assessment from public vendor material: product pages, documentation, public GitHub repositories and vendor press releases, reviewed in September 2026. We did not interview vendors.

They are the platforms most often weighed against each other for AI-assisted threat hunting and detection engineering on existing data, among those whose product pages we could read. Vendors whose pages we could not read were left out.

The scores stay fixed and only the weights move. Tools that lead on lower-weighted rows, such as ATT&CK coverage measurement or rule lifecycle, move up when those rows get more weight. Try it in the calculator.

Two tools are level on a criterion when their scores match, and level overall when their weighted figures match to two decimals. Level tools share a rank.

Email corrections@threathuntingcompare.com. We change a score only when public material supports the change, and we date the update.