Intruder alternatives 2026: 10 providers compared
Intruder is a provider headquartered in the United Kingdom and was included in this comparison through Gartner Peer Insights, attack surface. Its overall score is 18.4 out of 100, ranking 59th among 100 providers.
- Published
- Scanned
- 3–4 November 2026
- Infostealer score source
- The Infostealer Index 2026, 12 October 2026
- Overall score and rank
- 18.4 / 100 · 59th of 100
- Infostealer
- Not in the index
- Third-party risk
- 0 / 10 · 54th of 98
- Phishing and brand protection
- 0 / 10 · 61st of 98
- Executive protection
- 0 / 10 · 28th of 98
- Attack surface management
- 10 / 10 · 1st of 98
- API
- 10 / 10 · Public documentation
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Selection source
- Gartner Peer Insights, attack surface
- Website scanned
- intruder.io
Intruder score profile
- Infostealer
- Not in the index
- Third-party risk
- 0 / 10 · average 2.8
- Phishing and brand protection
- 0 / 10 · average 3.7
- Executive protection
- 0 / 10 · average 1.6
- Attack surface management
- 10 / 10 · average 4.9
- API
- 10 / 10 · average 5.3
Each average is calculated from the providers measured in that category.
Intruder ranks 59th among 100 providers with an overall score of 18.4, placing it in the lower half. It shares the same overall score with SwordSec, S4E, Microsoft and 3 more providers. The next score up belongs to Farnsworth Intelligence (19.4, 1.0 points higher). The next score down belongs to LeakCheck (16.9, 1.5 points lower).
Among the 38 providers selected through the same source (Gartner Peer Insights), it ranks 20th. The highest overall score in the group belongs to ImmuniWeb (44.7), 26.3 points above. Among the 7 providers headquartered in the United Kingdom it ranks 4th; the closest scores in that list belong to Orpheus Cyber (21.1) and LeakCheck (16.9).
Because it is not in the index, the infostealer contribution is 0; of its overall score of 18.4, 13.1 points come from the four product categories and 5.3 from the API score. It is one of 37 providers with public API documentation.
It scores above the average of 98 providers in 1 of the four product categories: attack surface management. Its strongest category relative to the average is attack surface management: 10 / 10 against an average of 4.9. It falls furthest below the average in phishing and brand protection: 0 / 10 against 3.7. Its best category rank is in attack surface management: 1st, shared with 13 providers.
Its category, API and infostealer scores are identical to those of Detectify.
Why look for alternatives
- No infostealer score: the provider is not listed in The Infostealer Index 2026.
- No capability was identified on the scanned pages in third-party risk, phishing and brand protection and executive protection.
10 closest alternatives
The list is drawn from providers that score in Intruder’s strongest categories (attack surface management): the 3 with the highest overall score and the 7 whose overall score is closest to Intruder.
- Dark Radar94.0
- Bitsight (Cybersixgill)72.3
- NordStellar69.9
- Intruder18.4
- SwordSec18.4
- S4E18.4
- Microsoft18.4
- CyCognito18.4
- Hadrian18.4
- Detectify18.4
- TrySec15.8
- 1
Dark Radar
Overall score 94.0 (1st; 75.6 points above Intruder). Scores higher than Intruder in third-party risk (9 vs Intruder 0), phishing and brand protection (9 vs Intruder 0) and executive protection (9 vs Intruder 0). Scores lower in attack surface management (9 vs Intruder 10).
Türkiye · Website scanned: darkradar.com
- 2
Bitsight (Cybersixgill)
Overall score 72.3 (2nd; 53.9 points above Intruder). Scores higher than Intruder in third-party risk (10 vs Intruder 0), phishing and brand protection (10 vs Intruder 0) and executive protection (8 vs Intruder 0). Scores lower in attack surface management (8 vs Intruder 10).
United States · Website scanned: bitsight.com
- 3
NordStellar
Overall score 69.9 (3rd; 51.5 points above Intruder). Scores higher than Intruder in phishing and brand protection (10 vs Intruder 0) and executive protection (10 vs Intruder 0). Scores lower in attack surface management (8 vs Intruder 10).
Lithuania · Website scanned: nordstellar.com
- 4
SwordSec
Overall score 18.4 (59th; same as Intruder). Scores higher than Intruder in phishing and brand protection (8 vs Intruder 0). Scores lower in attack surface management (6 vs Intruder 10). API: no documentation found.
Türkiye · Website scanned: swordsec.com
- 5
S4E
Overall score 18.4 (59th; same as Intruder). Scores higher than Intruder in phishing and brand protection (2 vs Intruder 0). Scores lower in attack surface management (8 vs Intruder 10).
Türkiye · Website scanned: s4e.io
- 6
Microsoft
Overall score 18.4 (59th; same as Intruder). Scores higher than Intruder in third-party risk (4 vs Intruder 0) and phishing and brand protection (2 vs Intruder 0). Scores lower in attack surface management (4 vs Intruder 10).
United States · Website scanned: Microsoft Defender EASM page
- 7
CyCognito
Overall score 18.4 (59th; same as Intruder). Scores higher than Intruder in third-party risk (2 vs Intruder 0). API: behind a login or contract.
United States · Website scanned: cycognito.com
- 8
Hadrian
Overall score 18.4 (59th; same as Intruder). Scores higher than Intruder in third-party risk (2 vs Intruder 0). API: behind a login or contract.
Netherlands · Website scanned: hadrian.io
- 9
Detectify
Overall score 18.4 (59th; same as Intruder). Scores are equal in the categories that could be compared.
Sweden · Website scanned: detectify.com
- 10
TrySec
Overall score 15.8 (69th; 2.6 points below Intruder). Scores higher than Intruder in phishing and brand protection (4 vs Intruder 0). Scores lower in attack surface management (8 vs Intruder 10). API: no documentation found.
Türkiye · Website scanned: trysec.com
Intruder vs Dark Radar, Bitsight (Cybersixgill) and NordStellar
| Criterion | Intruder | Dark Radar | Bitsight (Cybersixgill) | NordStellar |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 18.4 | 94.0 | 72.3 | 69.9 |
| Overall rank | 59th | 1st | 2nd | 3rd |
| Infostealer score | – | 98.2 | 46.7 | 66.1 |
| Infostealer focus (15%) | – | 9 | 4 | 6 |
| Device-level infection details (15%) | – | 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Employee, customer and supplier segmentation (12%) | – | 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Session cookie and token coverage (10%) | – | 10 | 5 | 9 |
| Collection timeliness (10%) | – | 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Published research (10%) | – | 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Free access (10%) | – | 10 | 1 | 4 |
| Third-party risk | 0 | 9 | 10 | 0 |
| Phishing and brand protection | 0 | 9 | 10 | 10 |
| Executive protection | 0 | 9 | 8 | 10 |
| Attack surface management | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8 |
| API | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Country | United Kingdom | Türkiye | United States | Lithuania |
| Selection source | Gartner Peer Insights, attack surface | 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.