Transparency alternatives to Recorded Future
Other Threat intelligence vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Recorded Future. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 34 that differ from Recorded Future on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Recorded Future has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Recorded Future” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Recorded Future | Found at Recorded Future, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataminrdataminr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dataminr | 70/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Feedly Threat Intelligencefeedly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Feedly Threat Intelligence | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Intezerintezer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intezer | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Cywarecyware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cyware | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Anomalianomali.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Anomali | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| IPinfoipinfo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to IPinfo | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Nisosnisos.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nisos | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Pulsedivepulsedive.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pulsedive | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Censyscensys.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Censys | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Flashpointflashpoint.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Flashpoint | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Intel 471intel471.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intel 471 | 26/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Searchlight Cyberslcyber.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Searchlight Cyber | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.