Career • December 16, 2025 • By Tying.ai Team

US Threat Intelligence Manager Market Analysis 2025

Threat Intelligence Manager hiring in 2025: collection strategy, prioritization, and stakeholder clarity.

Threat intelligence Collection Analysis Stakeholders Reporting

US Threat Intelligence Manager Market Analysis 2025 report cover

Executive Summary

If two people share the same title, they can still have different jobs. In Threat Intelligence Manager hiring, scope is the differentiator.
Most loops filter on scope first. Show you fit Detection engineering / hunting and the rest gets easier.
Hiring signal: You can reduce noise: tune detections and improve response playbooks.
What teams actually reward: You understand fundamentals (auth, networking) and common attack paths.
Where teams get nervous: Alert fatigue and false positives burn teams; detection quality becomes a differentiator.
Tie-breakers are proof: one track, one team throughput story, and one artifact (a backlog triage snapshot with priorities and rationale (redacted)) you can defend.

Market Snapshot (2025)

Treat this snapshot as your weekly scan for Threat Intelligence Manager: what’s repeating, what’s new, what’s disappearing.

Hiring signals worth tracking

Teams increasingly ask for writing because it scales; a clear memo about control rollout beats a long meeting.
If the post emphasizes documentation, treat it as a hint: reviews and auditability on control rollout are real.
Expect more “what would you do next” prompts on control rollout. Teams want a plan, not just the right answer.

Fast scope checks

Ask how decisions are documented and revisited when outcomes are messy.
Ask what happens when teams ignore guidance: enforcement, escalation, or “best effort”.
Use a simple scorecard: scope, constraints, level, loop for cloud migration. If any box is blank, ask.
Get specific on what breaks today in cloud migration: volume, quality, or compliance. The answer usually reveals the variant.
Get clear on what they would consider a “quiet win” that won’t show up in time-to-insight yet.

Role Definition (What this job really is)

Use this to get unstuck: pick Detection engineering / hunting, pick one artifact, and rehearse the same defensible story until it converts.

Treat it as a playbook: choose Detection engineering / hunting, practice the same 10-minute walkthrough, and tighten it with every interview.

Field note: what the first win looks like

This role shows up when the team is past “just ship it.” Constraints (vendor dependencies) and accountability start to matter more than raw output.

Ask for the pass bar, then build toward it: what does “good” look like for control rollout by day 30/60/90?

A first-quarter cadence that reduces churn with Leadership/IT:

Weeks 1–2: find where approvals stall under vendor dependencies, then fix the decision path: who decides, who reviews, what evidence is required.
Weeks 3–6: ship one artifact (a before/after note that ties a change to a measurable outcome and what you monitored) that makes your work reviewable, then use it to align on scope and expectations.
Weeks 7–12: close gaps with a small enablement package: examples, “when to escalate”, and how to verify the outcome.

In a strong first 90 days on control rollout, you should be able to point to:

Improve forecast accuracy without breaking quality—state the guardrail and what you monitored.
When forecast accuracy is ambiguous, say what you’d measure next and how you’d decide.
Turn control rollout into a scoped plan with owners, guardrails, and a check for forecast accuracy.

Interviewers are listening for: how you improve forecast accuracy without ignoring constraints.

If you’re aiming for Detection engineering / hunting, keep your artifact reviewable. a before/after note that ties a change to a measurable outcome and what you monitored plus a clean decision note is the fastest trust-builder.

Your story doesn’t need drama. It needs a decision you can defend and a result you can verify on forecast accuracy.

Role Variants & Specializations

A good variant pitch names the workflow (incident response improvement), the constraint (audit requirements), and the outcome you’re optimizing.

Threat hunting (varies)
GRC / risk (adjacent)
SOC / triage
Detection engineering / hunting
Incident response — clarify what you’ll own first: cloud migration

Demand Drivers

In the US market, roles get funded when constraints (vendor dependencies) turn into business risk. Here are the usual drivers:

Support burden rises; teams hire to reduce repeat issues tied to control rollout.
Customer pressure: quality, responsiveness, and clarity become competitive levers in the US market.
Scale pressure: clearer ownership and interfaces between Engineering/Compliance matter as headcount grows.

Supply & Competition

When scope is unclear on control rollout, companies over-interview to reduce risk. You’ll feel that as heavier filtering.

If you can defend a stakeholder update memo that states decisions, open questions, and next checks under “why” follow-ups, you’ll beat candidates with broader tool lists.

How to position (practical)

Lead with the track: Detection engineering / hunting (then make your evidence match it).
Pick the one metric you can defend under follow-ups: error rate. Then build the story around it.
Use a stakeholder update memo that states decisions, open questions, and next checks as the anchor: what you owned, what you changed, and how you verified outcomes.

Skills & Signals (What gets interviews)

Treat each signal as a claim you’re willing to defend for 10 minutes. If you can’t, swap it out.

Signals hiring teams reward

If you only improve one thing, make it one of these signals.

Can explain a disagreement between Leadership/IT and how they resolved it without drama.
Can explain a decision they reversed on cloud migration after new evidence and what changed their mind.
Can describe a “bad news” update on cloud migration: what happened, what you’re doing, and when you’ll update next.
You understand fundamentals (auth, networking) and common attack paths.
You can investigate alerts with a repeatable process and document evidence clearly.
Show how you stopped doing low-value work to protect quality under least-privilege access.
Can separate signal from noise in cloud migration: what mattered, what didn’t, and how they knew.

What gets you filtered out

If your Threat Intelligence Manager examples are vague, these anti-signals show up immediately.

Can’t explain prioritization under pressure (severity, blast radius, containment).
Treats documentation and handoffs as optional instead of operational safety.
Can’t separate signal from noise (alerts, detections) or explain tuning and verification.
Says “we aligned” on cloud migration without explaining decision rights, debriefs, or how disagreement got resolved.

Skill matrix (high-signal proof)

Pick one row, build a lightweight project plan with decision points and rollback thinking, then rehearse the walkthrough.

Skill / Signal	What “good” looks like	How to prove it
Log fluency	Correlates events, spots noise	Sample log investigation
Writing	Clear notes, handoffs, and postmortems	Short incident report write-up
Fundamentals	Auth, networking, OS basics	Explaining attack paths
Risk communication	Severity and tradeoffs without fear	Stakeholder explanation example
Triage process	Assess, contain, escalate, document	Incident timeline narrative

Hiring Loop (What interviews test)

Expect evaluation on communication. For Threat Intelligence Manager, clear writing and calm tradeoff explanations often outweigh cleverness.

Scenario triage — keep it concrete: what changed, why you chose it, and how you verified.
Log analysis — be ready to talk about what you would do differently next time.
Writing and communication — match this stage with one story and one artifact you can defend.

Portfolio & Proof Artifacts

When interviews go sideways, a concrete artifact saves you. It gives the conversation something to grab onto—especially in Threat Intelligence Manager loops.

A measurement plan for customer satisfaction: instrumentation, leading indicators, and guardrails.
A control mapping doc for cloud migration: control → evidence → owner → how it’s verified.
A definitions note for cloud migration: key terms, what counts, what doesn’t, and where disagreements happen.
An incident update example: what you verified, what you escalated, and what changed after.
A one-page scope doc: what you own, what you don’t, and how it’s measured with customer satisfaction.
A finding/report excerpt (sanitized): impact, reproduction, remediation, and follow-up.
A debrief note for cloud migration: what broke, what you changed, and what prevents repeats.
A Q&A page for cloud migration: likely objections, your answers, and what evidence backs them.
A handoff template that prevents repeated misunderstandings.
A short assumptions-and-checks list you used before shipping.

Interview Prep Checklist

Bring a pushback story: how you handled Leadership pushback on control rollout and kept the decision moving.
Practice a 10-minute walkthrough of an incident timeline narrative and what you changed to reduce recurrence: context, constraints, decisions, what changed, and how you verified it.
Name your target track (Detection engineering / hunting) and tailor every story to the outcomes that track owns.
Ask what a normal week looks like (meetings, interruptions, deep work) and what tends to blow up unexpectedly.
Practice an incident narrative: what you verified, what you escalated, and how you prevented recurrence.
Rehearse the Scenario triage stage: narrate constraints → approach → verification, not just the answer.
Record your response for the Log analysis stage once. Listen for filler words and missing assumptions, then redo it.
Practice log investigation and triage: evidence, hypotheses, checks, and escalation decisions.
Record your response for the Writing and communication stage once. Listen for filler words and missing assumptions, then redo it.
Bring a short incident update writing sample (status, impact, next steps, and what you verified).
Prepare one threat/control story: risk, mitigations, evidence, and how you reduce noise for engineers.

Compensation & Leveling (US)

Pay for Threat Intelligence Manager is a range, not a point. Calibrate level + scope first:

After-hours and escalation expectations for detection gap analysis (and how they’re staffed) matter as much as the base band.
Regulatory scrutiny raises the bar on change management and traceability—plan for it in scope and leveling.
Band correlates with ownership: decision rights, blast radius on detection gap analysis, and how much ambiguity you absorb.
Incident expectations: whether security is on-call and what “sev1” looks like.
Performance model for Threat Intelligence Manager: what gets measured, how often, and what “meets” looks like for conversion rate.
Approval model for detection gap analysis: how decisions are made, who reviews, and how exceptions are handled.

Questions that reveal the real band (without arguing):

For Threat Intelligence Manager, what benefits are tied to level (extra PTO, education budget, parental leave, travel policy)?
Are there sign-on bonuses, relocation support, or other one-time components for Threat Intelligence Manager?
For Threat Intelligence Manager, are there examples of work at this level I can read to calibrate scope?
If there’s a bonus, is it company-wide, function-level, or tied to outcomes on cloud migration?

Title is noisy for Threat Intelligence Manager. The band is a scope decision; your job is to get that decision made early.

Career Roadmap

Your Threat Intelligence Manager roadmap is simple: ship, own, lead. The hard part is making ownership visible.

If you’re targeting Detection engineering / hunting, choose projects that let you own the core workflow and defend tradeoffs.

Career steps (practical)

Entry: build defensible basics: risk framing, evidence quality, and clear communication.
Mid: automate repetitive checks; make secure paths easy; reduce alert fatigue.
Senior: design systems and guardrails; mentor and align across orgs.
Leadership: set security direction and decision rights; measure risk reduction and outcomes, not activity.

Action Plan

Candidate plan (30 / 60 / 90 days)

30 days: Practice explaining constraints (auditability, least privilege) without sounding like a blocker.
60 days: Run role-plays: secure design review, incident update, and stakeholder pushback.
90 days: Track your funnel and adjust targets by scope and decision rights, not title.

Hiring teams (how to raise signal)

Make scope explicit: product security vs cloud security vs IAM vs governance. Ambiguity creates noisy pipelines.
Score for judgment on incident response improvement: tradeoffs, rollout strategy, and how candidates avoid becoming “the no team.”
If you want enablement, score enablement: docs, templates, and defaults—not just “found issues.”
Make the operating model explicit: decision rights, escalation, and how teams ship changes to incident response improvement.

Risks & Outlook (12–24 months)

“Looks fine on paper” risks for Threat Intelligence Manager candidates (worth asking about):

Compliance pressure pulls security toward governance work—clarify the track in the job description.
Alert fatigue and false positives burn teams; detection quality becomes a differentiator.
Tool sprawl is common; consolidation often changes what “good” looks like from quarter to quarter.
If the org is scaling, the job is often interface work. Show you can make handoffs between IT/Security less painful.
In tighter budgets, “nice-to-have” work gets cut. Anchor on measurable outcomes (delivery predictability) and risk reduction under audit requirements.

Methodology & Data Sources

This is not a salary table. It’s a map of how teams evaluate and what evidence moves you forward.

Use it to avoid mismatch: clarify scope, decision rights, constraints, and support model early.

Where to verify these signals:

BLS/JOLTS to compare openings and churn over time (see sources below).
Comp samples to avoid negotiating against a title instead of scope (see sources below).
Relevant standards/frameworks that drive review requirements and documentation load (see sources below).
Trust center / compliance pages (constraints that shape approvals).
Your own funnel notes (where you got rejected and what questions kept repeating).

FAQ

Are certifications required?

Not universally. They can help with screening, but investigation ability, calm triage, and clear writing are often stronger signals.

How do I get better at investigations fast?

Practice a repeatable workflow: gather evidence, form hypotheses, test, document, and decide escalation. Write one short investigation narrative that shows judgment and verification steps.