Threat intelligence platforms · RankedMISP
MISP is an open source threat intelligence and sharing platform for incident analysts, security and ICT professionals, and malware reversers · misp-project.org ↗
Strongest at mid-market, contested with OpenCTI. Ranked 22 of 117 for enterprise buyers.
The standing depends on who is buying. Every model is asked the same questions for each company size.
Ranked first, contested: SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence has 10%.
Ranked first, contested: OpenCTI has 14%. 0 of 14 models made it the first choice when asked directly.
Recorded Future Intelligence Cloud is first at 62%.
Why models recommend it
“MISP is an excellent starting point for organizations building their first threat intelligence program without the budget for commercial TIPs.”Claude Haiku 4.5 · Budget-constrained question · first choice
“Free, community-driven, and transparent about data sources. Best for organizations with internal intelligence capability.”DeepSeek V4 Flash · Negative question · first choice
“the best threat intelligence (TI) platform is often an open-source or free-tier option like MISP ... or OpenCTI”Grok 4.20 · Budget-constrained question · first choice
“Top Recommendation: AlienVault OTX (Open Threat Exchange) + MISP (Malware Information Sharing Platform)”Grok 4.20 · Paraphrase question · first choice
What gives them pause
“Sources such as OTX, MISP feeds, PhishTank, and similar services can be useful, but licensing, fair-use, commercial-use, freshness, and accuracy need review”Perplexity Sonar · Negative question · warning
“has had authenticated SQL injection (CVE‑2026‑44381) that can be exploited by an attacker with a valid API key”GLM 4.7 FlashX · Negative question · warning
“Unlike older open-source tools like MISP, OpenCTI offers a modern, graph-based user interface”Gemini 3.5 Flash · Paraphrase question · warning
“Use MISP or OpenCTI only if you have the technical capacity to maintain them”Qwen 3.7 Flash · Negative question · warning
Also on the shortlist
The products named in the same answers as MISP, over the 115 answers that named it, and how often each was the first choice instead.
| Product | Named together | Picked instead | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 89 | 17 | Compare → | |
| 67 | 8 | Compare → | |
| 64 | 6 | Compare → | |
| 58 | 3 | View → | |
| 45 | 3 | Compare → | |
| 35 | 2 | Compare → | |
| 25 | 1 | View → | |
| 22 | 0 | View → | |
| 19 | 4 | Compare → | |
| 17 | 6 | View → |
What the models named instead of MISP →
A side-by-side page exists where both products are among a category's top eight.
At a glance
Stated on MISP's own site, not checked by Gane.
- For
- incident analysts, security and ICT professionals or malware reversers
- Price stated
- free to use
- Free plan or trial
- Download now
How this is measured
Fourteen AI models from 12 labs are asked the same buying questions six ways, for three company sizes. Standings refresh every edition.
Gane sells AI visibility software. No company can pay to change a result.
Read the method →Sources returned with these answers
Fourteen of the fourteen models returned a source list in this edition: five return the pages they cited and nine the search results they consulted. These counts come from 98 of the 115 answers that named MISP and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
202 of the 227 domain citations in answers naming MISP came from a third party's page. Twenty-five were to the publisher's own pages (the Gane Index), which the models cite like any other source; they are not counted as a third party.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
By model
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Warning | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Grok 4.20 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
What it publishes
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 3 | 0 | 2001-01-01 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 1 | 0 | 2001-01-01 | ||
| Conference or event | 1 | 0 | 2001-01-01 | ||
| Comparison | 1 | 0 | 2019-09-25 |
Most recent
- 2019-09-25Hostev vs own misp comparison
- 2001-01-01Best practices for misp api key management blog
- 2001-01-01Events webinar webinar or virtual event
- 2001-01-01Sizing your misp instance blog
- 2001-01-01Misp summit conference or event
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page misp-project.org exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.