Exabeam Threat Intelligence

Name: Exabeam Threat Intelligence
Brand: Exabeam
Rating: 4.4 (284 reviews)

Better Security. Faster Results.

Est 2003|Valuation $247.7M|Raised $706.6M

LinkedIn 52K|Website|Web traffic 79K|FTEs 782|HQ Broomfield, Colorado, US

MarketsThreat Intelligence Platforms Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis: where competitors can excel

- Standalone TIPs (Recorded Future, Anomali, ThreatConnect): typically better for dedicated intelligence workflows (STIX/TAXII, collection management, analyst scoring, dissemination) than a SIEM-bundled feed. - Splunk ES: often chosen when teams need broad extensibility and deep customization; however, pricing and cost governance are common issues. - Microsoft Sentinel: often chosen for operational alignment in Microsoft-centric environments; ingestion-based pricing requires governance to manage costs. - Palo Alto Cortex XSIAM: chosen in some cases for platform consolidation and automation; vendor-published ROI studies should be validated independently.

Competitive proof-points and skepticism

Exabeam has previously publicized competitive win rates against other vendors; such claims are vendor-asserted and should be treated as directional rather than independently audited.
Analyst reports and market sizing from firms like IDC or Forrester may provide more rigorous context but are typically behind paywalls and can be dated.

	Exabeam Threat Intelligence (TIS within Exabeam platform)	Microsoft Sentinel	Splunk Enterprise Security
Starting Price	Not publicly itemized; described as included with some Exabeam licensing; overall platform pricing is quote-based	Public consumption-based pricing model exists (ingestion-based with commitment tiers); published consumption pricing varies by region/plan	Pricing is typically quote-based and varies by deployment
Primary use case	Exabeam-centric SOCs seeking native intel enrichment in SIEM/UEBA workflows without operating a separate TIP	Microsoft-heavy environments aligned to Azure/Defender ecosystem; flexible ingestion-based scaling	Organizations requiring extensibility and deep customization across a broad app ecosystem
Key strength	Integration into Exabeam workflows; curated feeds (ZeroFox) surfaced through context tables and rules	Tight integration with Microsoft security stack; documented consumption model and query ecosystem	Highly customizable with a broad integration ecosystem and many mature security add-ons
Key weakness	Dependent on Exabeam platform maturity; platform-level reviews cite tuning burden and migration uncertainty	Costs can increase without ingestion governance; requires Azure expertise	Cost and complexity are frequent sources of customer concern

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis: where competitors can excel

Standalone TIPs (Recorded Future, Anomali, ThreatConnect): typically better for dedicated intelligence workflows (STIX/TAXII, collection management, analyst scoring, dissemination) than a SIEM-bundled feed.
Splunk ES: often chosen when teams need broad extensibility and deep customization; however, pricing and cost governance are common issues.
Microsoft Sentinel: often chosen for operational alignment in Microsoft-centric environments; ingestion-based pricing requires governance to manage costs.
Palo Alto Cortex XSIAM: chosen in some cases for platform consolidation and automation; vendor-published ROI studies should be validated independently.

Competitive proof-points and skepticism

Exabeam has previously publicized competitive win rates against other vendors; such claims are vendor-asserted and should be treated as directional rather than independently audited.
Analyst reports and market sizing from firms like IDC or Forrester may provide more rigorous context but are typically behind paywalls and can be dated.

	Exabeam Threat Intelligence (TIS within Exabeam platform)	Microsoft Sentinel	Splunk Enterprise Security
Starting Price	Not publicly itemized; described as included with some Exabeam licensing; overall platform pricing is quote-based	Public consumption-based pricing model exists (ingestion-based with commitment tiers); published consumption pricing varies by region/plan	Pricing is typically quote-based and varies by deployment
Primary use case	Exabeam-centric SOCs seeking native intel enrichment in SIEM/UEBA workflows without operating a separate TIP	Microsoft-heavy environments aligned to Azure/Defender ecosystem; flexible ingestion-based scaling	Organizations requiring extensibility and deep customization across a broad app ecosystem
Key strength	Integration into Exabeam workflows; curated feeds (ZeroFox) surfaced through context tables and rules	Tight integration with Microsoft security stack; documented consumption model and query ecosystem	Highly customizable with a broad integration ecosystem and many mature security add-ons
Key weakness	Dependent on Exabeam platform maturity; platform-level reviews cite tuning burden and migration uncertainty	Costs can increase without ingestion governance; requires Azure expertise	Cost and complexity are frequent sources of customer concern