watchTowr alternatives 2026: 10 providers compared
watchTowr is a provider headquartered in Singapore and was included in this comparison through Gartner Peer Insights, attack surface. Its overall score is 15.8 out of 100, ranking 69th among 100 providers.
- Published
- Scanned
- 3–4 November 2026
- Infostealer score source
- The Infostealer Index 2026, 12 October 2026
- Overall score and rank
- 15.8 / 100 · 69th of 100
- Infostealer
- Not in the index
- Third-party risk
- 4 / 10 · 25th of 98
- Phishing and brand protection
- 2 / 10 · 42nd of 98
- Executive protection
- 0 / 10 · 28th of 98
- Attack surface management
- 4 / 10 · 44th of 98
- API
- 5 / 10 · Behind a login or contract
- Country
- Singapore
- Selection source
- Gartner Peer Insights, attack surface
- Website scanned
- watchtowr.com
watchTowr score profile
- Infostealer
- Not in the index
- Third-party risk
- 4 / 10 · average 2.8
- Phishing and brand protection
- 2 / 10 · average 3.7
- Executive protection
- 0 / 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.
watchTowr ranks 69th among 100 providers with an overall score of 15.8, placing it in the lower half. It shares the same overall score with TrySec, ReliaQuest, CYFIRMA and 3 more providers. The next score up belongs to SOS Intelligence and Hold Security (16.4, 0.6 points higher). The next score down belongs to Kaduu (13.9, 1.9 points lower).
Among the 38 providers selected through the same source (Gartner Peer Insights), it ranks 25th. The highest overall score in the group belongs to ImmuniWeb (44.7), 28.9 points above. Among the 4 providers headquartered in Singapore it ranks 3rd; the closest scores in that list belong to CYFIRMA (15.8) and StealthMole (22.0).
Because it is not in the index, the infostealer contribution is 0; of its overall score of 15.8, 13.2 points come from the four product categories and 2.6 from the API score. It is one of 33 providers whose API documentation sits behind a login or contract.
It scores above the average of 98 providers in 1 of the four product categories: third-party risk. Its strongest category relative to the average is third-party risk: 4 / 10 against an average of 2.8. It falls furthest below the average in phishing and brand protection: 2 / 10 against 3.7. Its best category rank is in third-party risk: 25th, shared with 12 providers.
Its category, API and infostealer scores are identical to those of Halo Security.
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: 2 of five capabilities identified (4 / 10).
- Phishing and brand protection: 1 of five capabilities identified (2 / 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 watchTowr’s highest-scoring categories (third-party risk and attack surface management): the 3 with the highest overall score and the 7 whose overall score is closest to watchTowr.
- Dark Radar94.0
- Bitsight (Cybersixgill)72.3
- Cyble64.8
- Microsoft18.4
- CyCognito18.4
- Hadrian18.4
- watchTowr15.8
- ReliaQuest15.8
- Feedly15.8
- Halo Security15.8
- Zynap15.8
- 1
Dark Radar
Overall score 94.0 (1st; 78.2 points above watchTowr). Scores higher than watchTowr in third-party risk (9 vs watchTowr 4), phishing and brand protection (9 vs watchTowr 2), executive protection (9 vs watchTowr 0) and attack surface management (9 vs watchTowr 4). API: public documentation.
Türkiye · Website scanned: darkradar.com
- 2
Bitsight (Cybersixgill)
Overall score 72.3 (2nd; 56.5 points above watchTowr). Scores higher than watchTowr in third-party risk (10 vs watchTowr 4), phishing and brand protection (10 vs watchTowr 2), executive protection (8 vs watchTowr 0) and attack surface management (8 vs watchTowr 4). API: public documentation.
United States · Website scanned: bitsight.com
- 3
Cyble
Overall score 64.8 (5th; 49.0 points above watchTowr). Scores higher than watchTowr in phishing and brand protection (10 vs watchTowr 2), executive protection (10 vs watchTowr 0) and attack surface management (8 vs watchTowr 4).
United States · Website scanned: cyble.com
- 4
Microsoft
Overall score 18.4 (59th; 2.6 points above watchTowr). Scores are equal in the categories that could be compared. API: public documentation.
United States · Website scanned: Microsoft Defender EASM page
- 5
CyCognito
Overall score 18.4 (59th; 2.6 points above watchTowr). Scores higher than watchTowr in attack surface management (10 vs watchTowr 4). Scores lower in third-party risk (2 vs watchTowr 4) and phishing and brand protection (0 vs watchTowr 2).
United States · Website scanned: cycognito.com
- 6
Hadrian
Overall score 18.4 (59th; 2.6 points above watchTowr). Scores higher than watchTowr in attack surface management (10 vs watchTowr 4). Scores lower in third-party risk (2 vs watchTowr 4) and phishing and brand protection (0 vs watchTowr 2).
Netherlands · Website scanned: hadrian.io
- 7
ReliaQuest
Overall score 15.8 (69th; same as watchTowr). Scores lower in third-party risk (2 vs watchTowr 4). API: public documentation.
United States · Website scanned: reliaquest.com
- 8
Feedly
Overall score 15.8 (69th; same as watchTowr). Scores lower in third-party risk (2 vs watchTowr 4). API: public documentation.
United States · Website scanned: feedly.com/threat-intelligence
- 9
Halo Security
Overall score 15.8 (69th; same as watchTowr). Scores are equal in the categories that could be compared.
United States · Website scanned: halosecurity.com
- 10
Zynap
Overall score 15.8 (69th; same as watchTowr). Scores higher than watchTowr in attack surface management (6 vs watchTowr 4). Scores lower in third-party risk (2 vs watchTowr 4).
Spain · Website scanned: zynap.com
watchTowr vs Dark Radar, Bitsight (Cybersixgill) and Cyble
| Criterion | watchTowr | Dark Radar | Bitsight (Cybersixgill) | Cyble |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 15.8 | 94.0 | 72.3 | 64.8 |
| Overall rank | 69th | 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 | 4 | 9 | 10 | 4 |
| Phishing and brand protection | 2 | 9 | 10 | 10 |
| Executive protection | 0 | 9 | 8 | 10 |
| Attack surface management | 4 | 9 | 8 | 8 |
| API | 5 | 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Country | Singapore | Türkiye | United States | United States |
| 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.