ThreatMon alternatives 2026: 10 providers compared
ThreatMon is a provider headquartered in Türkiye and was included in this comparison through The Infostealer Index 2026. Its overall score is 55.9 out of 100, ranking 9th among 100 providers.
- Published
- Scanned
- 3–4 November 2026
- Infostealer score source
- The Infostealer Index 2026, 12 October 2026
- Overall score and rank
- 55.9 / 100 · 9th of 100
- Infostealer
- 39.0 / 100 · 27th of 35
- Third-party risk
- 6 / 10 · 18th of 98
- Phishing and brand protection
- 10 / 10 · 1st of 98
- Executive protection
- 8 / 10 · 7th of 98
- Attack surface management
- 4 / 10 · 44th of 98
- API
- 5 / 10 · Behind a login or contract
- Country
- Türkiye
- Selection source
- The Infostealer Index 2026
- Website scanned
- threatmon.io
- Recorded during scanning
- Brand /solutions/brand-protection · supplier /products/supply-chain-risk-management · executive /solutions/vip-protection · surface /products/attack-surface-intelligence.
ThreatMon score profile
- Infostealer
- 39.0 / 100 · average 53.8
- Third-party risk
- 6 / 10 · average 2.8
- Phishing and brand protection
- 10 / 10 · average 3.7
- Executive protection
- 8 / 10 · average 1.6
- Attack surface management
- 4 / 10 · average 4.9
- API
- 5 / 10 · average 5.3
Each average is calculated from the providers measured in that category.
ThreatMon ranks 9th among 100 providers with an overall score of 55.9, placing it in the top 10. The next score up belongs to Check Point (Cyberint) (58.8, 2.9 points higher). The next score down belongs to SpyCloud (53.5, 2.4 points lower).
Among the 34 providers selected through the same source (The Infostealer Index 2026), it ranks 8th. The highest overall score in the group belongs to Bitsight (Cybersixgill) (72.3), 16.4 points above. Among the 23 providers headquartered in Türkiye it ranks 2nd; the closest scores in that list belong to Dark Radar (94.0) and Brandefense (50.0).
Of its overall score of 55.9, 16.4 points come from infostealer, 36.9 from the four product categories and 2.6 from the API score; the largest share, 66%, 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 39.0, ranking 27th among the 35 providers with this score. Of the seven criteria, its highest score is in collection timeliness (6 / 10; ranked 23rd). Its lowest is in session cookie and token coverage (1 / 10; ranked 27th). It is above the average on 1 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 executive protection. Its strongest category relative to the average is executive protection: 8 / 10 against an average of 1.6. It falls furthest below the average in attack surface management: 4 / 10 against 4.9. Its best category rank is in phishing and brand protection: 1st, shared with 16 providers.
Its score distribution is closest to Cyble: overall score 64.8, with the same score in 1 of the four categories.
Why look for alternatives
- Infostealer score 39.0; 26 providers score higher in this category.
- Third-party risk: 3 of five capabilities identified (6 / 10).
- Executive protection: 4 of five capabilities identified (8 / 10).
- Attack surface management: 2 of five capabilities identified (4 / 10).
- API documentation is available behind a login or contract.
10 closest alternatives
The list is drawn from providers that score in ThreatMon’s strongest categories (third-party risk, phishing and brand protection and executive protection): the 3 with the highest overall score and the 7 whose overall score is closest to ThreatMon.
- Dark Radar94.0
- Bitsight (Cybersixgill)72.3
- Flare65.8
- Cyble64.8
- SOCRadar63.1
- ThreatMon55.9
- Brandefense50.0
- Deepinfo50.0
- ImmuniWeb44.7
- Styx Intelligence44.7
- CTM36042.1
- 1
Dark Radar
Overall score 94.0 (1st; 38.1 points above ThreatMon). Scores higher than ThreatMon in infostealer (98.2 vs ThreatMon 39.0), third-party risk (9 vs ThreatMon 6), executive protection (9 vs ThreatMon 8) and attack surface management (9 vs ThreatMon 4). Scores lower in phishing and brand protection (9 vs ThreatMon 10). API: public documentation.
Türkiye · Website scanned: darkradar.com
- 2
Bitsight (Cybersixgill)
Overall score 72.3 (2nd; 16.4 points above ThreatMon). Scores higher than ThreatMon in infostealer (46.7 vs ThreatMon 39.0), third-party risk (10 vs ThreatMon 6) and attack surface management (8 vs ThreatMon 4). API: public documentation.
United States · Website scanned: bitsight.com
- 3
Flare
Overall score 65.8 (4th; 9.9 points above ThreatMon). Scores higher than ThreatMon in infostealer (81.2 vs ThreatMon 39.0). Scores lower in third-party risk (4 vs ThreatMon 6), phishing and brand protection (8 vs ThreatMon 10) and attack surface management (0 vs ThreatMon 4). API: public documentation.
Canada · Website scanned: flare.io
- 4
Cyble
Overall score 64.8 (5th; 8.9 points above ThreatMon). Scores higher than ThreatMon in infostealer (47.7 vs ThreatMon 39.0), executive protection (10 vs ThreatMon 8) and attack surface management (8 vs ThreatMon 4). Scores lower in third-party risk (4 vs ThreatMon 6).
United States · Website scanned: cyble.com
- 5
SOCRadar
Overall score 63.1 (7th; 7.2 points above ThreatMon). Scores higher than ThreatMon in infostealer (71.7 vs ThreatMon 39.0) and attack surface management (5 vs ThreatMon 4). Scores lower in third-party risk (5 vs ThreatMon 6) and phishing and brand protection (5 vs ThreatMon 10).
United States · Website scanned: socradar.io
- 6
Brandefense
Overall score 50.0 (14th; 5.9 points below ThreatMon). Scores higher than ThreatMon in third-party risk (8 vs ThreatMon 6), executive protection (10 vs ThreatMon 8) and attack surface management (8 vs ThreatMon 4).
Türkiye · Website scanned: brandefense.io
- 7
Deepinfo
Overall score 50.0 (14th; 5.9 points below ThreatMon). Scores higher than ThreatMon in third-party risk (8 vs ThreatMon 6) and attack surface management (8 vs ThreatMon 4). API: public documentation.
Türkiye · Website scanned: deepinfo.com
- 8
ImmuniWeb
Overall score 44.7 (18th; 11.2 points below ThreatMon). Scores higher than ThreatMon in third-party risk (10 vs ThreatMon 6) and attack surface management (10 vs ThreatMon 4). Scores lower in phishing and brand protection (8 vs ThreatMon 10) and executive protection (2 vs ThreatMon 8). API: public documentation.
Switzerland · Website scanned: immuniweb.com
- 9
Styx Intelligence
Overall score 44.7 (18th; 11.2 points below ThreatMon). Scores higher than ThreatMon in third-party risk (8 vs ThreatMon 6), executive protection (10 vs ThreatMon 8) and attack surface management (6 vs ThreatMon 4). API: no documentation found.
Canada · Website scanned: styxintel.com
- 10
CTM360
Overall score 42.1 (21st; 13.8 points below ThreatMon). Scores higher than ThreatMon in third-party risk (8 vs ThreatMon 6) and attack surface management (8 vs ThreatMon 4). Scores lower in executive protection (4 vs ThreatMon 8).
Bahrain · Website scanned: ctm360.com
ThreatMon vs Dark Radar, Bitsight (Cybersixgill) and Flare
| Criterion | ThreatMon | Dark Radar | Bitsight (Cybersixgill) | Flare |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 55.9 | 94.0 | 72.3 | 65.8 |
| Overall rank | 9th | 1st | 2nd | 4th |
| Infostealer score | 39.0 | 98.2 | 46.7 | 81.2 |
| Infostealer focus (15%) | 4 | 9 | 4 | 7 |
| Device-level infection details (15%) | 2 | 10 | 5 | 9 |
| Employee, customer and supplier segmentation (12%) | 5 | 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Session cookie and token coverage (10%) | 1 | 10 | 5 | 9 |
| Collection timeliness (10%) | 6 | 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Published research (10%) | 5 | 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Free access (10%) | 5 | 10 | 1 | 6 |
| Third-party risk | 6 | 9 | 10 | 4 |
| Phishing and brand protection | 10 | 9 | 10 | 8 |
| Executive protection | 8 | 9 | 8 | 8 |
| Attack surface management | 4 | 9 | 8 | 0 |
| API | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Country | Türkiye | Türkiye | United States | Canada |
| 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.