SecurityScorecard alternatives 2026: 10 providers compared
SecurityScorecard is a provider headquartered in the United States and was included in this comparison through Forrester Wave, security ratings. Its overall score is 28.9 out of 100, ranking 37th among 100 providers.
- Published
- Scanned
- 3–4 November 2026
- Infostealer score source
- The Infostealer Index 2026, 12 October 2026
- Overall score and rank
- 28.9 / 100 · 37th of 100
- Infostealer
- Not in the index
- Third-party risk
- 8 / 10 · 6th of 98
- Phishing and brand protection
- 4 / 10 · 35th of 98
- Executive protection
- 0 / 10 · 28th of 98
- Attack surface management
- 6 / 10 · 35th of 98
- API
- 10 / 10 · Public documentation (readme.io)
- Country
- United States
- Selection source
- Forrester Wave, security ratings
- Website scanned
- securityscorecard.com
SecurityScorecard score profile
- Infostealer
- Not in the index
- Third-party risk
- 8 / 10 · average 2.8
- Phishing and brand protection
- 4 / 10 · average 3.7
- Executive protection
- 0 / 10 · average 1.6
- Attack surface management
- 6 / 10 · average 4.9
- API
- 10 / 10 · average 5.3
Each average is calculated from the providers measured in that category.
SecurityScorecard ranks 37th among 100 providers with an overall score of 28.9, placing it in the top half. It shares the same overall score with ECHO. The next score up belongs to Searchlight Cyber (29.8, 0.9 points higher). The next score down belongs to DarkOwl (26.7, 2.2 points lower).
Among the 4 providers selected through the same source (Forrester Wave), it ranks 3rd. The highest overall score in the group belongs to UpGuard (36.8), 7.9 points above. Among the 31 providers headquartered in the United States it ranks 15th; the closest scores in that list belong to Panorays (31.6) and DarkOwl (26.7).
Because it is not in the index, the infostealer contribution is 0; of its overall score of 28.9, 23.6 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 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 third-party risk: 8 / 10 against an average of 2.8. It falls furthest below the average in executive protection: 0 / 10 against 1.6. Its best category rank is in third-party risk: 6th, shared with 11 providers.
Its score distribution is closest to Panorays: overall score 31.6, with the same score in 2 of the four categories.
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 executive protection.
- Third-party risk: 4 of five capabilities identified (8 / 10).
- Phishing and brand protection: 2 of five capabilities identified (4 / 10).
- Attack surface management: 3 of five capabilities identified (6 / 10).
10 closest alternatives
The list is drawn from providers that score in SecurityScorecard’s strongest categories (third-party risk and attack surface management): the 3 with the highest overall score and the 7 whose overall score is closest to SecurityScorecard.
- Dark Radar94.0
- Bitsight (Cybersixgill)72.3
- Cyble64.8
- Black Kite31.6
- Panorays31.6
- Foresiet31.6
- Searchlight Cyber29.8
- SecurityScorecard28.9
- ECHO28.9
- ScruteX (BrandSek)26.3
- ThingsRecon23.7
- 1
Dark Radar
Overall score 94.0 (1st; 65.1 points above SecurityScorecard). Scores higher than SecurityScorecard in third-party risk (9 vs SecurityScorecard 8), phishing and brand protection (9 vs SecurityScorecard 4), executive protection (9 vs SecurityScorecard 0) and attack surface management (9 vs SecurityScorecard 6).
Türkiye · Website scanned: darkradar.com
- 2
Bitsight (Cybersixgill)
Overall score 72.3 (2nd; 43.4 points above SecurityScorecard). Scores higher than SecurityScorecard in third-party risk (10 vs SecurityScorecard 8), phishing and brand protection (10 vs SecurityScorecard 4), executive protection (8 vs SecurityScorecard 0) and attack surface management (8 vs SecurityScorecard 6).
United States · Website scanned: bitsight.com
- 3
Cyble
Overall score 64.8 (5th; 35.9 points above SecurityScorecard). Scores higher than SecurityScorecard in phishing and brand protection (10 vs SecurityScorecard 4), executive protection (10 vs SecurityScorecard 0) and attack surface management (8 vs SecurityScorecard 6). Scores lower in third-party risk (4 vs SecurityScorecard 8). API: behind a login or contract.
United States · Website scanned: cyble.com
- 4
Black Kite
Overall score 31.6 (33rd; 2.7 points above SecurityScorecard). Scores higher than SecurityScorecard in third-party risk (10 vs SecurityScorecard 8) and attack surface management (10 vs SecurityScorecard 6). Scores lower in phishing and brand protection (2 vs SecurityScorecard 4). API: behind a login or contract.
United States · Website scanned: blackkite.com
- 5
Panorays
Overall score 31.6 (33rd; 2.7 points above SecurityScorecard). Scores higher than SecurityScorecard in attack surface management (10 vs SecurityScorecard 6). Scores lower in phishing and brand protection (2 vs SecurityScorecard 4).
United States · Website scanned: panorays.com
- 6
Foresiet
Overall score 31.6 (33rd; 2.7 points above SecurityScorecard). Scores higher than SecurityScorecard in phishing and brand protection (8 vs SecurityScorecard 4) and executive protection (2 vs SecurityScorecard 0). API: no documentation found.
India · Website scanned: foresiet.com
- 7
Searchlight Cyber
Overall score 29.8 (36th; 0.9 points above SecurityScorecard). Scores lower in third-party risk (2 vs SecurityScorecard 8), phishing and brand protection (0 vs SecurityScorecard 4) and attack surface management (4 vs SecurityScorecard 6). API: behind a login or contract.
United Kingdom · Website scanned: slcyber.io
- 8
ECHO
Overall score 28.9 (37th; same as SecurityScorecard). Scores higher than SecurityScorecard in phishing and brand protection (10 vs SecurityScorecard 4) and executive protection (4 vs SecurityScorecard 0). Scores lower in third-party risk (2 vs SecurityScorecard 8) and attack surface management (4 vs SecurityScorecard 6). API: behind a login or contract.
Türkiye · Website scanned: echocti.com
- 9
ScruteX (BrandSek)
Overall score 26.3 (40th; 2.6 points below SecurityScorecard). Scores higher than SecurityScorecard in phishing and brand protection (6 vs SecurityScorecard 4) and attack surface management (8 vs SecurityScorecard 6). Scores lower in third-party risk (2 vs SecurityScorecard 8).
Australia · Website scanned: scrutex.ai
- 10
ThingsRecon
Overall score 23.7 (44th; 5.2 points below SecurityScorecard). Scores higher than SecurityScorecard in attack surface management (8 vs SecurityScorecard 6). Scores lower in phishing and brand protection (2 vs SecurityScorecard 4). API: no documentation found.
Netherlands · Website scanned: thingsrecon.com
SecurityScorecard vs Dark Radar, Bitsight (Cybersixgill) and Cyble
| Criterion | SecurityScorecard | Dark Radar | Bitsight (Cybersixgill) | Cyble |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 28.9 | 94.0 | 72.3 | 64.8 |
| Overall rank | 37th | 1st | 2nd | 5th |
| Infostealer score | – | 98.2 | 46.7 | 47.7 |
| Infostealer focus (15%) | – | 9 | 4 | 4 |
| Device-level infection details (15%) | – | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Employee, customer and supplier segmentation (12%) | – | 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Session cookie and token coverage (10%) | – | 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Collection timeliness (10%) | – | 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Published research (10%) | – | 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Free access (10%) | – | 10 | 1 | 4 |
| Third-party risk | 8 | 9 | 10 | 4 |
| Phishing and brand protection | 4 | 9 | 10 | 10 |
| Executive protection | 0 | 9 | 8 | 10 |
| Attack surface management | 6 | 9 | 8 | 8 |
| API | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Country | United States | Türkiye | United States | United States |
| Selection source | Forrester Wave, security ratings | 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.