Group-IB alternatives 2026: 10 providers compared
Group-IB is a provider headquartered in Singapore and was included in this comparison through The Infostealer Index 2026. Its overall score is 36.6 out of 100, ranking 28th among 100 providers.
- Published
- Scanned
- 3–4 November 2026
- Infostealer score source
- The Infostealer Index 2026, 12 October 2026
- Overall score and rank
- 36.6 / 100 · 28th of 100
- Infostealer
- 49.4 / 100 · 17th of 35
- Third-party risk
- 0 / 10 · 54th of 98
- Phishing and brand protection
- 8 / 10 · 19th of 98
- Executive protection
- 0 / 10 · 28th of 98
- Attack surface management
- 2 / 10 · 68th of 98
- API
- 5 / 10 · Behind a login or contract (account required)
- Country
- Singapore
- Selection source
- The Infostealer Index 2026
- Website scanned
- group-ib.com
- Recorded during scanning
- Only the asset discovery capability was identified on the attack surface product page.
Group-IB score profile
- Infostealer
- 49.4 / 100 · average 53.8
- Third-party risk
- 0 / 10 · average 2.8
- Phishing and brand protection
- 8 / 10 · average 3.7
- Executive protection
- 0 / 10 · average 1.6
- Attack surface management
- 2 / 10 · average 4.9
- API
- 5 / 10 · average 5.3
Each average is calculated from the providers measured in that category.
Group-IB ranks 28th among 100 providers with an overall score of 36.6, placing it in the top half. The next score up belongs to RiskProfiler and UpGuard (36.8, 0.2 points higher). The next score down belongs to DarkStrata (34.5, 2.1 points lower).
Among the 34 providers selected through the same source (The Infostealer Index 2026), it ranks 18th. The highest overall score in the group belongs to Bitsight (Cybersixgill) (72.3), 35.7 points above. Among the 4 providers headquartered in Singapore it ranks 1st; the closest scores in that list belong to StealthMole (22.0) and CYFIRMA (15.8).
Of its overall score of 36.6, 20.8 points come from infostealer, 13.2 from the four product categories and 2.6 from the API score; the largest share, 57%, comes from the infostealer score. It is one of 33 providers whose API documentation sits behind a login or contract (account required).
Its infostealer score is 49.4, ranking 17th 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 free access (1 / 10; ranked 28th). It is above the average on 3 of the seven criteria.
It scores above the average of 98 providers in 1 of the four product categories: phishing and brand protection. Its strongest category relative to the average is phishing and brand protection: 8 / 10 against an average of 3.7. It falls furthest below the average in attack surface management: 2 / 10 against 4.9. Its best category rank is in phishing and brand protection: 19th, shared with 8 providers.
Its score distribution is closest to Resecurity: overall score 33.1, with the same score in 3 of the four categories.
Why look for alternatives
- Infostealer score 49.4; 16 providers score higher in this category.
- No capability was identified on the scanned pages in third-party risk and executive protection.
- Phishing and brand protection: 4 of five capabilities identified (8 / 10).
- Attack surface management: 1 of five capabilities identified (2 / 10).
- API documentation is available behind a login or contract.
10 closest alternatives
The list is drawn from providers that score in Group-IB’s strongest categories (phishing and brand protection): the 3 with the highest overall score and the 7 whose overall score is closest to Group-IB.
- Dark Radar94.0
- Bitsight (Cybersixgill)72.3
- NordStellar69.9
- Outpost24 Threat Compass39.7
- ZeroFox39.5
- Axur39.5
- RiskProfiler36.8
- UpGuard36.8
- Group-IB36.6
- ThreatBook34.2
- Resecurity33.1
- 1
Dark Radar
Overall score 94.0 (1st; 57.4 points above Group-IB). Scores higher than Group-IB in infostealer (98.2 vs Group-IB 49.4), third-party risk (9 vs Group-IB 0), phishing and brand protection (9 vs Group-IB 8), executive protection (9 vs Group-IB 0) and attack surface management (9 vs Group-IB 2). API: public documentation.
Türkiye · Website scanned: darkradar.com
- 2
Bitsight (Cybersixgill)
Overall score 72.3 (2nd; 35.7 points above Group-IB). Scores higher than Group-IB in third-party risk (10 vs Group-IB 0), phishing and brand protection (10 vs Group-IB 8), executive protection (8 vs Group-IB 0) and attack surface management (8 vs Group-IB 2). Scores lower in infostealer (46.7 vs Group-IB 49.4). API: public documentation.
United States · Website scanned: bitsight.com
- 3
NordStellar
Overall score 69.9 (3rd; 33.3 points above Group-IB). Scores higher than Group-IB in infostealer (66.1 vs Group-IB 49.4), phishing and brand protection (10 vs Group-IB 8), executive protection (10 vs Group-IB 0) and attack surface management (8 vs Group-IB 2). API: public documentation.
Lithuania · Website scanned: nordstellar.com
- 4
Outpost24 Threat Compass
Overall score 39.7 (22nd; 3.1 points above Group-IB). Scores higher than Group-IB in infostealer (50.6 vs Group-IB 49.4) and attack surface management (6 vs Group-IB 2). Scores lower in phishing and brand protection (6 vs Group-IB 8).
Sweden · Website scanned: outpost24.com
- 5
ZeroFox
Overall score 39.5 (23rd; 2.9 points above Group-IB). Scores higher than Group-IB in third-party risk (8 vs Group-IB 0), executive protection (10 vs Group-IB 0) and attack surface management (6 vs Group-IB 2). Scores lower in phishing and brand protection (4 vs Group-IB 8).
United States · Website scanned: zerofox.com
- 6
Axur
Overall score 39.5 (23rd; 2.9 points above Group-IB). Scores higher than Group-IB in phishing and brand protection (10 vs Group-IB 8), executive protection (8 vs Group-IB 0) and attack surface management (10 vs Group-IB 2).
Brazil · Website scanned: axur.com
- 7
RiskProfiler
Overall score 36.8 (26th; 0.2 points above Group-IB). Scores higher than Group-IB in third-party risk (8 vs Group-IB 0), executive protection (2 vs Group-IB 0) and attack surface management (10 vs Group-IB 2). API: no documentation found.
United States · Website scanned: riskprofiler.io
- 8
UpGuard
Overall score 36.8 (26th; 0.2 points above Group-IB). Scores higher than Group-IB in third-party risk (6 vs Group-IB 0), phishing and brand protection (10 vs Group-IB 8) and attack surface management (8 vs Group-IB 2). API: public documentation.
United States · Website scanned: upguard.com
- 9
ThreatBook
Overall score 34.2 (30th; 2.4 points below Group-IB). Scores higher than Group-IB in third-party risk (2 vs Group-IB 0), phishing and brand protection (10 vs Group-IB 8) and attack surface management (10 vs Group-IB 2). API: public documentation.
China · Website scanned: threatbook.io
- 10
Resecurity
Overall score 33.1 (31st; 3.5 points below Group-IB). Scores higher than Group-IB in executive protection (2 vs Group-IB 0). Scores lower in infostealer (34.8 vs Group-IB 49.4).
United States · Website scanned: resecurity.com
Group-IB vs Dark Radar, Bitsight (Cybersixgill) and NordStellar
| Criterion | Group-IB | Dark Radar | Bitsight (Cybersixgill) | NordStellar |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 36.6 | 94.0 | 72.3 | 69.9 |
| Overall rank | 28th | 1st | 2nd | 3rd |
| Infostealer score | 49.4 | 98.2 | 46.7 | 66.1 |
| Infostealer focus (15%) | 4 | 9 | 4 | 6 |
| Device-level infection details (15%) | 5 | 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Employee, customer and supplier segmentation (12%) | 5 | 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Session cookie and token coverage (10%) | 5 | 10 | 5 | 9 |
| Collection timeliness (10%) | 7 | 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Published research (10%) | 8 | 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Free access (10%) | 1 | 10 | 1 | 4 |
| Third-party risk | 0 | 9 | 10 | 0 |
| Phishing and brand protection | 8 | 9 | 10 | 10 |
| Executive protection | 0 | 9 | 8 | 10 |
| Attack surface management | 2 | 9 | 8 | 8 |
| API | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Country | Singapore | Türkiye | United States | Lithuania |
| 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.