Straight answer
We answer one buyer question: Which tool turns new threat intelligence into hunts and detections across the data you already have, without building a new ingestion pipeline? We score each tool from 1 to 5 on seven weighted criteria using public vendor material only. The matrix shows per-criterion scores, weighted figures and a pairwise grid based on them. We did not test any product.
This edition compares six platforms whose public material describes continuous threat hunting on existing security data. Coverage-only and detection-reliability tools are outside its scope.
What are the seven criteria?
| Code | Criterion | Weight | What we look for |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPD | Intel-to-detection speed | 20% | How directly and quickly a newly published threat report becomes a tested, deployable detection, as described on public pages. |
| CHN | Continuous hunting | 20% | Whether the tool runs hunts on its own, continuously or on a schedule, from intelligence or from a hypothesis, rather than only on request. |
| COV | Coverage measurement against ATT&CK | 8% | Whether public material shows how coverage against MITRE ATT&CK is measured: a coverage view, heatmap, scores or named tactics and techniques. |
| LIF | Rule lifecycle | 7% | Testing or backtesting before a rule goes live, version history, review and approval, CI and rollback. |
| REA | Data reach without new ingestion | 25% | Whether it reads the SIEM, EDR, identity, cloud and data-lake data a team already runs without a new ingestion pipeline, and whether those platforms are named. |
| TRN | Buyer transparency | 5% | What a buyer can learn before a sales call: public price, public documentation, a sandbox or cost tool, a published deployment timeline. |
| DEP | Time to first value | 15% | How quickly a team can start hunting on its existing data, as stated on public pages: deployment model, stated setup time, marketplace listings and whether new ingestion is needed. |
Why these weights?
The question is about hunting on existing data quickly, so data reach, intel-to-detection speed, continuous hunting and time to first value carry most of the weight. Coverage measurement, rule lifecycle and buyer transparency still count, but carry less.
What does each score mean?
- 5: documented in detail on public pages, with specifics (named platforms, a described workflow, a stated figure).
- 4: clearly stated, with some specifics missing.
- 3: partly addressed, or stated in general terms.
- 2: mentioned in passing, or handled through a different mechanism.
- 1: not addressed on public pages, or the tool is built for a different job.
Buyer transparency: no vendor publishes a price. 3 means a public documentation site, sandbox, cost tool or detailed connector list and timeline; 2 means some deployment claims; 1 means none of these.
How are pairwise results worked out?
Each tool gets a weighted figure: the sum of score times weight, divided by 100, out of 5. It is computed in the page code from the published weights, so anyone can check it. In the grid, the tool with the higher weighted figure gets the W; figures equal to two decimals are a T. Head-to-heads also count the criteria where each tool scores higher, so you can see how broad a difference is.
What counts as evidence?
Only material a buyer can read without a sales call: product pages, documentation, public GitHub repositories and the vendor's own press releases. Where a vendor does not publish something, we say "Not published" and score conservatively. Vendor performance claims, such as speed or deployment time, are quoted as vendor claims, not as verified results.
How are SIEM and data platforms treated?
The tools compared here run on, or read from, platforms such as Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, Google SecOps, Elastic, CrowdStrike NG-SIEM, Sumo Logic, Snowflake and Databricks. We name those platforms only to show where each tool can reach. We do not score, rank or compare them.
What are the limitations?
- Public sources only. No product testing, no trials, no vendor interviews, no customer interviews.
- Public pages change. Everything here reflects what we read in September 2026.
- A low score often means "not documented publicly", not "missing from the product". A vendor may do more than its pages show.
- Some pages could not be read in full. Mars Security's blog posts render in the browser only, so we relied on its product pages, guides and press release.
- The rubric fits one job: turning intelligence into hunts and detections on existing data. Tools built for other jobs score low on criteria outside their scope.
How would a different question change the result?
This rubric answers one question. Teams that care most about rule lifecycle and ATT&CK coverage measurement should weight those higher; on such a rubric Nebulock and Anvilogic move ahead of Mars Security.
Disclosure
Mars Security is a client of the agency that publishes Threat Hunting Compare. The relationship does not change the rubric, the weights or the scores. Mars Security is scored on the same evidence rules as every other tool, and the rows it loses are shown in full: ATT&CK coverage measurement, rule lifecycle and buyer transparency are its weakest criteria. No vendor reviewed this site before publication.
How do I report an error?
Email corrections@threathuntingcompare.com, answered within a week. Include the page and the public source that supports the change.
Editorial assessment · Desk research from public vendor material, last reviewed September 2026