Alternatives to Pulsedive
Other Threat intelligence vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Pulsedive does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 25 that differ from Pulsedive on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Pulsedive has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “publishes and Pulsedive does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and Pulsedive does not | Pulsedive publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataminrdataminr.com | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +3 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Feedly Threat Intelligencefeedly.com | 48/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Cywarecyware.com | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Intezerintezer.com | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Anomalianomali.com | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Cyblecyble.com | 22/100 | 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| IPinfoipinfo.io | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| GreyNoisegreynoise.io | 30/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Intel 471intel471.com | 26/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Recorded Futurerecordedfuture.com | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Censyscensys.com | 39/100 | 1 Status page with history | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Group-IBgroup-ib.com | 13/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.