Check Point (Cyberint) alternatives 2026: 10 providers compared
Check Point (Cyberint) is a provider headquartered in Israel and was included in this comparison through The Infostealer Index 2026. Its overall score is 58.8 out of 100, ranking 8th among 100 providers.
- Published
- Scanned
- 3–4 November 2026
- Infostealer score source
- The Infostealer Index 2026, 12 October 2026
- Overall score and rank
- 58.8 / 100 · 8th of 100
- Infostealer
- 52.1 / 100 · 14th of 35
- Third-party risk
- 8 / 10 · 6th of 98
- Phishing and brand protection
- 10 / 10 · 1st of 98
- Executive protection
- 0 / 10 · 28th of 98
- Attack surface management
- 8 / 10 · 16th of 98
- API
- 5 / 10 · Behind a login or contract
- Country
- Israel
- Selection source
- The Infostealer Index 2026
- Website scanned
- cyberint.com
- Recorded during scanning
- /platform/digital-brand-protection, /platform/supply-chain-intelligence, /platform/attack-surface-management.
Check Point (Cyberint) score profile
- Infostealer
- 52.1 / 100 · average 53.8
- Third-party risk
- 8 / 10 · average 2.8
- Phishing and brand protection
- 10 / 10 · average 3.7
- Executive protection
- 0 / 10 · average 1.6
- Attack surface management
- 8 / 10 · average 4.9
- API
- 5 / 10 · average 5.3
Each average is calculated from the providers measured in that category.
Check Point (Cyberint) ranks 8th among 100 providers with an overall score of 58.8, placing it in the top 10. The next score up belongs to SOCRadar (63.1, 4.3 points higher). The next score down belongs to ThreatMon (55.9, 2.9 points lower).
Among the 34 providers selected through the same source (The Infostealer Index 2026), it ranks 7th. The highest overall score in the group belongs to Bitsight (Cybersixgill) (72.3), 13.5 points above. Among the 7 providers headquartered in Israel it ranks 1st; the closest scores in that list belong to Hudson Rock (49.0) and Lunar (Webz.io) (37.8).
Of its overall score of 58.8, 21.9 points come from infostealer, 34.3 from the four product categories and 2.6 from the API score; the largest share, 58%, comes from the four product categories. It is one of 33 providers whose API documentation sits behind a login or contract.
Its infostealer score is 52.1, ranking 14th among the 35 providers with this score. Of the seven criteria, its highest score is in published research (8 / 10; ranked 8th). Its lowest is in session cookie and token coverage (3 / 10; ranked 19th). It is above the average on 3 of the seven criteria.
It scores above the average of 98 providers in 3 of the four product categories: third-party risk, phishing and brand protection and attack surface management. Its strongest category relative to the average is phishing and brand protection: 10 / 10 against an average of 3.7. It falls furthest below the average in executive protection: 0 / 10 against 1.6. Its best category rank is in phishing and brand protection: 1st, shared with 16 providers.
Its score distribution is closest to CTM360: overall score 42.1, with the same score in 3 of the four categories.
Why look for alternatives
- Infostealer score 52.1; 13 providers score higher in this category.
- No capability was identified on the scanned pages in executive protection.
- Third-party risk: 4 of five capabilities identified (8 / 10).
- Attack surface management: 4 of five capabilities identified (8 / 10).
- API documentation is available behind a login or contract.
10 closest alternatives
The list is drawn from providers that score in Check Point (Cyberint)’s strongest categories (third-party risk, phishing and brand protection and attack surface management): the 3 with the highest overall score and the 7 whose overall score is closest to Check Point (Cyberint).
- Dark Radar94.0
- Bitsight (Cybersixgill)72.3
- Cyble64.8
- Recorded Future63.3
- SOCRadar63.1
- Check Point (Cyberint)58.8
- ThreatMon55.9
- Breachsense52.7
- Brandefense50.0
- Deepinfo50.0
- ImmuniWeb44.7
- 1
Dark Radar
Overall score 94.0 (1st; 35.2 points above Check Point (Cyberint)). Scores higher than Check Point (Cyberint) in infostealer (98.2 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 52.1), third-party risk (9 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8), executive protection (9 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 0) and attack surface management (9 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8). Scores lower in phishing and brand protection (9 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 10). API: public documentation.
Türkiye · Website scanned: darkradar.com
- 2
Bitsight (Cybersixgill)
Overall score 72.3 (2nd; 13.5 points above Check Point (Cyberint)). Scores higher than Check Point (Cyberint) in third-party risk (10 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8) and executive protection (8 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 0). Scores lower in infostealer (46.7 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 52.1). API: public documentation.
United States · Website scanned: bitsight.com
- 3
Cyble
Overall score 64.8 (5th; 6.0 points above Check Point (Cyberint)). Scores higher than Check Point (Cyberint) in executive protection (10 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 0). Scores lower in infostealer (47.7 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 52.1) and third-party risk (4 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8).
United States · Website scanned: cyble.com
- 4
Recorded Future
Overall score 63.3 (6th; 4.5 points above Check Point (Cyberint)). Scores higher than Check Point (Cyberint) in infostealer (69.0 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 52.1) and third-party risk (10 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8). Scores lower in phishing and brand protection (6 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 10) and attack surface management (6 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8). API: public documentation.
United States · Website scanned: recordedfuture.com
- 5
SOCRadar
Overall score 63.1 (7th; 4.3 points above Check Point (Cyberint)). Scores higher than Check Point (Cyberint) in infostealer (71.7 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 52.1) and executive protection (8 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 0). Scores lower in third-party risk (5 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8), phishing and brand protection (5 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 10) and attack surface management (5 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8).
United States · Website scanned: socradar.io
- 6
ThreatMon
Overall score 55.9 (9th; 2.9 points below Check Point (Cyberint)). Scores higher than Check Point (Cyberint) in executive protection (8 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 0). Scores lower in infostealer (39.0 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 52.1), third-party risk (6 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8) and attack surface management (4 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8).
Türkiye · Website scanned: threatmon.io
- 7
Breachsense
Overall score 52.7 (12th; 6.1 points below Check Point (Cyberint)). Scores higher than Check Point (Cyberint) in infostealer (69.0 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 52.1). Scores lower in third-party risk (4 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8), phishing and brand protection (8 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 10) and attack surface management (2 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8). API: public documentation.
United States · Website scanned: breachsense.com
- 8
Brandefense
Overall score 50.0 (14th; 8.8 points below Check Point (Cyberint)). Scores higher than Check Point (Cyberint) in executive protection (10 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 0).
Türkiye · Website scanned: brandefense.io
- 9
Deepinfo
Overall score 50.0 (14th; 8.8 points below Check Point (Cyberint)). Scores higher than Check Point (Cyberint) in executive protection (8 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 0). API: public documentation.
Türkiye · Website scanned: deepinfo.com
- 10
ImmuniWeb
Overall score 44.7 (18th; 14.1 points below Check Point (Cyberint)). Scores higher than Check Point (Cyberint) in third-party risk (10 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8), executive protection (2 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 0) and attack surface management (10 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 8). Scores lower in phishing and brand protection (8 vs Check Point (Cyberint) 10). API: public documentation.
Switzerland · Website scanned: immuniweb.com
Check Point (Cyberint) vs Dark Radar, Bitsight (Cybersixgill) and Cyble
| Criterion | Check Point (Cyberint) | Dark Radar | Bitsight (Cybersixgill) | Cyble |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 58.8 | 94.0 | 72.3 | 64.8 |
| Overall rank | 8th | 1st | 2nd | 5th |
| Infostealer score | 52.1 | 98.2 | 46.7 | 47.7 |
| Infostealer focus (15%) | 4 | 9 | 4 | 4 |
| Device-level infection details (15%) | 5 | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Employee, customer and supplier segmentation (12%) | 6 | 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Session cookie and token coverage (10%) | 3 | 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Collection timeliness (10%) | 7 | 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Published research (10%) | 8 | 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Free access (10%) | 4 | 10 | 1 | 4 |
| Third-party risk | 8 | 9 | 10 | 4 |
| Phishing and brand protection | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 |
| Executive protection | 0 | 9 | 8 | 10 |
| Attack surface management | 8 | 9 | 8 | 8 |
| API | 5 | 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Country | Israel | Türkiye | United States | United States |
| Selection source | The Infostealer Index 2026 | Türkiye-linked providers | The Infostealer Index 2026 | The Infostealer Index 2026 |
Overall and infostealer scores are out of 100; criterion and category scores are out of 10. “–” means the component could not be measured.
Related pages
This comparison was prepared through web scanning and source review carried out with Claude Opus 5.5.