Threat hunting comparison matrix: 6 tools, 7 criteria

Straight answer

For teams that want to hunt on the data they already have, Mars Security has a higher weighted figure than each of the other five: Mars Security 4.47 of 5, Nebulock 4.34, Anvilogic 4.00. Use the grid to compare any pair and the score table to see where each tool is stronger, criterion by criterion.

Which tools fit this question best?

1
Mars Security
4.47 / 5
Best for: Turning new threat intelligence into backtested detections and continuous hunts on the data you already have.
Stronger on:Intel to detectionContinuous huntingData reachTime to first value
Weaker on:ATT&CK coverageTransparency
2
Nebulock
4.34 / 5
Best for: Continuous hunting with rules that must pass a retrohunt, plus version history and revert.
Stronger on:Intel to detectionContinuous huntingRule lifecycle
Weaker on:ATT&CK coverageTransparency
3
Anvilogic
4.00 / 5
Best for: Searching and detecting across many named SIEMs, data lakes and object stores without moving the data.
Stronger on:Data reach
Weaker on:Continuous huntingTransparency
4
Cotool
3.63 / 5
Best for: Building AI agents for detection, response and hunting across a wide set of integrations.
Stronger on:Intel to detectionContinuous huntingATT&CK coverageData reach
Weaker on:Transparency
5
Vega
3.35 / 5
Best for: Hypothesis-led hunts, with detections reviewed in source control like code.
Stronger on:Continuous huntingATT&CK coverageRule lifecycle
Weaker on:Intel to detectionData reachTransparencyTime to first value
6
Artemis Security
3.28 / 5
Best for: Daily continuous hunts, with a published connector list and setup timeline.
Stronger on:Continuous huntingTime to first value
Weaker on:Rule lifecycle

Weighted figure out of 5 = each 1 to 5 score times its weight, summed and divided by 100. Ties share a rank.

How do the six tools score on each criterion?

Table 1. Scores from 1 to 5 per criterion, editorial assessment from public vendor material, September 2026. Rows ordered by weighted figure.
Tool	Intel to detectionweight 20%	Continuous huntingweight 20%	ATT&CK coverageweight 8%	Rule lifecycleweight 7%	Data reachweight 25%	Transparencyweight 5%	Time to first valueweight 15%	Weighted figureout of 5
Mars Security	5	5	2	3	5	2	5	4.47
Nebulock	5	5	3	5	4	3	4	4.34
Anvilogic	4	3	4	4	5	3	4	4.00
Cotool	4	4	4	3	4	1	3	3.63
Vega	3	4	4	4	3	3	3	3.35
Artemis Security	3	4	3	2	3	3	4	3.28

Column labels:

Intel to detection: Intel-to-detection speed, weight 20%
Continuous hunting: Continuous hunting, weight 20%
ATT&CK coverage: Coverage measurement against ATT&CK, weight 8%
Rule lifecycle: Rule lifecycle, weight 7%
Data reach: Data reach without new ingestion, weight 25%
Transparency: Buyer transparency, weight 5%
Time to first value: Time to first value, weight 15%

Editorial assessment, 1 to 5 per criterion, from public vendor material. It measures fit for turning threat intelligence into hunts and detections on data a team already has. It is not a measure of overall product quality.

Why these scores: Anvilogic

Intel-to-detection speed 4 / 5: Detect agents take threat intel to validated, deployed detection logic on every connected platform; no speed figure is stated.
Continuous hunting 3 / 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&CK 4 / 5: Thousands of MITRE-mapped detections and coverage scoring against ATT&CK; the scoring view itself is not shown in detail.
Rule lifecycle 4 / 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 ingestion 5 / 5: 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 transparency 3 / 5: 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 value 4 / 5: Runs on top of existing storage in augment or standalone modes; no published time-to-value figure.

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

Why these scores: Artemis Security

Intel-to-detection speed 3 / 5: Hunts draw on 100+ intelligence feeds and detections are written automatically; the route from a new report to a tested rule is not described.
Continuous hunting 4 / 5: Runs continuous hunts daily against a growing library, plus ad hoc hunts described in natural language.
Coverage measurement against ATT&CK 3 / 5: Claims comprehensive MITRE coverage from day one; we found no public coverage view.
Rule lifecycle 2 / 5: Detections are written and tuned automatically; no testing, versioning or review workflow is described.
Data reach without new ingestion 3 / 5: 225+ connectors, but detection-critical hot-path data is ingested; only high-volume data is queried where it lives.
Buyer transparency 3 / 5: No public price; the full connector list and a stated timeline (connectors live in under an hour, real cases inside 48 hours) are published.
Time to first value 4 / 5: States connectors go live in under an hour and real cases arrive inside 48 hours; ingests hot-path data.

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

Why these scores: Cotool

Intel-to-detection speed 4 / 5: Agents gather intelligence from the web, check each item for relevance to your environment and propose detections; no speed figure is stated.
Continuous hunting 4 / 5: Hunt agents work from intelligence as it appears, and chat investigations can be turned into always-on agents.
Coverage measurement against ATT&CK 4 / 5: Maps the whole detection suite across sources onto ATT&CK to monitor coverage and surface gaps.
Rule lifecycle 3 / 5: Compatible with existing detection-as-code tooling, with agent version control and automatic tuning; testing before deployment is not described.
Data reach without new ingestion 4 / 5: 40+ native integrations, including Splunk, Datadog, Panther, Snowflake and Databricks, plus custom MCP servers.
Buyer transparency 1 / 5: No public price, no public documentation and no published deployment model or timeline.
Time to first value 3 / 5: Deployment details are not published.

Source: cotool.ai · cotool.ai · cotool.ai · cotool.ai · Reviewed Sep 2026

Why these scores: Mars Security

Intel-to-detection speed 5 / 5: 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.
Continuous hunting 5 / 5: Converts intelligence into behavioral hunts and runs them continuously; hypothesis playbooks were introduced in September 2026.
Coverage measurement against ATT&CK 2 / 5: Rules are described as ATT&CK-mapped, but we found no public coverage view, heatmap or tactic-level map.
Rule lifecycle 3 / 5: Backtesting before go-live is documented; version history, review and CI are not described on public pages.
Data reach without new ingestion 5 / 5: 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.
Buyer transparency 2 / 5: No public price and no public documentation site; the vendor states deployment in hours, SOC 2 and an AWS Marketplace listing.
Time to first value 5 / 5: States deployment in hours with no data ingestion; SOC 2 and listed on AWS Marketplace.

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

Why these scores: Nebulock

Intel-to-detection speed 5 / 5: 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.
Continuous hunting 5 / 5: Built to hunt continuously; hunts run without a directive and follow the published four-stage LOCK framework.
Coverage measurement against ATT&CK 3 / 5: Hypotheses map to ATT&CK and the docs reference a MITRE Coverage feature; public pages do not show how coverage is measured.
Rule lifecycle 5 / 5: Every rule must pass a retrohunt before deployment, with immutable version history, compare and revert, and GitHub export.
Data reach without new ingestion 4 / 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.
Buyer transparency 3 / 5: No public price, but a public documentation site and MIT-licensed frameworks on GitHub.
Time to first value 4 / 5: SaaS with documented integrations; no published time-to-value figure.

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

Why these scores: Vega

Intel-to-detection speed 3 / 5: Hunt findings can be promoted to MITRE-mapped detections on the spot; an intelligence-to-detection workflow is not described.
Continuous hunting 4 / 5: Given a hypothesis, it runs the whole hunt across sources on its own and shows each step; a continuous schedule is not stated.
Coverage measurement against ATT&CK 4 / 5: A security assessment shows real ATT&CK coverage and the gaps.
Rule lifecycle 4 / 5: Detections live in source control and every change has a diff, an author and an approver; pre-deployment testing is not described.
Data reach without new ingestion 3 / 5: Queries every source in place with no migration or ingestion, but its connectors page names no platforms.
Buyer transparency 3 / 5: No public price; a public sandbox lets a buyer try the product before a sales call.
Time to first value 3 / 5: Queries data in place; public pages do not name connectors or describe deployment.

Source: vega.io · vega.io · vega.io · vega.io · vega.io · Reviewed Sep 2026

Who leads each criterion?

Intel-to-detection speed (20%): Mars Security and Nebulock, 5 of 5
Continuous hunting (20%): Mars Security and Nebulock, 5 of 5
Coverage measurement against ATT&CK (8%): Anvilogic, Cotool and Vega, 4 of 5
Rule lifecycle (7%): Nebulock, 5 of 5
Data reach without new ingestion (25%): Anvilogic and Mars Security, 5 of 5
Buyer transparency (5%): Anvilogic, Artemis Security, Nebulock and Vega, 3 of 5
Time to first value (15%): Mars Security, 5 of 5

Ties are shown as ties. No vendor publishes a price, so buyer transparency tops out at 3.

Pair by pair

Each cell compares the tool in the row with the tool in the column and says in words which has the higher weighted figure: "Row stronger", "Column stronger" or "Level". The two figures sit underneath, row tool first. Every cell links to the head-to-head page for that pair.

Pair by pair: which tool in each pair has the higher weighted figure. Read across a row: the row tool compared with the column tool.
Row tool	Anvilogic	Artemis Security	Cotool	Mars Security	Nebulock	Vega
Anvilogic	Same tool	Row stronger4.00 to 3.28Read the head-to-head	Row stronger4.00 to 3.63Read the head-to-head	Column stronger4.00 to 4.47Read the head-to-head	Column stronger4.00 to 4.34Read the head-to-head	Row stronger4.00 to 3.35Read the head-to-head
Artemis Security	Column stronger3.28 to 4.00Read the head-to-head	Same tool	Column stronger3.28 to 3.63Read the head-to-head	Column stronger3.28 to 4.47Read the head-to-head	Column stronger3.28 to 4.34Read the head-to-head	Column stronger3.28 to 3.35Read the head-to-head
Cotool	Column stronger3.63 to 4.00Read the head-to-head	Row stronger3.63 to 3.28Read the head-to-head	Same tool	Column stronger3.63 to 4.47Read the head-to-head	Column stronger3.63 to 4.34Read the head-to-head	Row stronger3.63 to 3.35Read the head-to-head
Mars Security	Row stronger4.47 to 4.00Read the head-to-head	Row stronger4.47 to 3.28Read the head-to-head	Row stronger4.47 to 3.63Read the head-to-head	Same tool	Row stronger4.47 to 4.34Read the head-to-head	Row stronger4.47 to 3.35Read the head-to-head
Nebulock	Row stronger4.34 to 4.00Read the head-to-head	Row stronger4.34 to 3.28Read the head-to-head	Row stronger4.34 to 3.63Read the head-to-head	Column stronger4.34 to 4.47Read the head-to-head	Same tool	Row stronger4.34 to 3.35Read the head-to-head
Vega	Column stronger3.35 to 4.00Read the head-to-head	Row stronger3.35 to 3.28Read the head-to-head	Column stronger3.35 to 3.63Read the head-to-head	Column stronger3.35 to 4.47Read the head-to-head	Column stronger3.35 to 4.34Read the head-to-head	Same tool

Anvilogic vs Artemis Security: Anvilogic, 4.00 to 3.28 Read the head-to-head
Anvilogic vs Cotool: Anvilogic, 4.00 to 3.63 Read the head-to-head
Anvilogic vs Mars Security: Mars Security, 4.47 to 4.00 Read the head-to-head
Anvilogic vs Nebulock: Nebulock, 4.34 to 4.00 Read the head-to-head
Anvilogic vs Vega: Anvilogic, 4.00 to 3.35 Read the head-to-head
Artemis Security vs Cotool: Cotool, 3.63 to 3.28 Read the head-to-head
Artemis Security vs Mars Security: Mars Security, 4.47 to 3.28 Read the head-to-head
Artemis Security vs Nebulock: Nebulock, 4.34 to 3.28 Read the head-to-head
Artemis Security vs Vega: Vega, 3.35 to 3.28 Read the head-to-head
Cotool vs Mars Security: Mars Security, 4.47 to 3.63 Read the head-to-head
Cotool vs Nebulock: Nebulock, 4.34 to 3.63 Read the head-to-head
Cotool vs Vega: Cotool, 3.63 to 3.35 Read the head-to-head
Mars Security vs Nebulock: Mars Security, 4.47 to 4.34 Read the head-to-head
Mars Security vs Vega: Mars Security, 4.47 to 3.35 Read the head-to-head
Nebulock vs Vega: Nebulock, 4.34 to 3.35 Read the head-to-head

Figure 1. Pair by pair results by weighted figure. Desk research from public vendor material, September 2026.

Why show per-criterion scores as well?

The order by weighted figure answers one question. A team whose main gap is ATT&CK coverage reporting should look first at Anvilogic, Cotool and Vega, which score highest on it, even though they are weaker on continuous hunting. We publish the scores, the weights and the method so you can apply your own priorities; see How we compare.

Which head-to-heads are published?

Anvilogic vs Nebulock

Nebulock stronger on 3, Anvilogic on 2, level on 2

Read the comparison

Vega vs Anvilogic

Anvilogic stronger on 3, Vega on 1, level on 3

Read the comparison

Cotool vs Nebulock

Nebulock stronger on 5, Cotool on 1, level on 1

Read the comparison

Mars Security vs Vega

Mars Security stronger on 4, Vega on 3, level on 0

Read the comparison

Mars Security vs Artemis Security

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

Read the comparison

See all 15 head-to-heads

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

Common questions

Where does the data come from?

Public vendor material only: product pages, documentation, public GitHub repositories and vendor press releases, reviewed in September 2026. Each vendor's sources are listed under its scores.

Why these six tools?

They are the platforms most often weighed against each other for AI-assisted threat hunting and detection engineering in 2026. We left out vendors whose product pages we could not read.

Can a vendor ask for a change?

Anyone can send a correction to corrections@threathuntingcompare.com, answered within a week. We change a score only when public material supports the change, and we date the update.