Comparison · Digital risk platforms

ShadowMap vs Cyble

Cyble is a broad platform and the overlap with ShadowMap is real across most capability groups. The separation is narrow and it is entirely about what happens after something is found.

Request an exposure snapshot How to evaluate this

What they actually are

Cyble is a platform, and a broad one

“The unified agentic cybersecurity platform”

Cyble’s own positioning line, quoted

Cyble sells across intelligence, attack surface, brand protection and endpoint, and it repositioned during 2026 from an intelligence claim to a platform claim, which puts it in more direct overlap with ShadowMap than it was a year ago. Nine named products sit behind that claim.

The line is broad, the analyst and peer-review density behind it is genuinely strong, and a buyer consolidating suppliers gets an endpoint product in the same stack, which we do not sell at all.

Conceded

Where Cyble is genuinely strong

Four things we are not going to argue with. If any one of them is the deciding factor in your evaluation, that decision is already made and it is not made in our favour.

Breadth

The overlap is real

Cyble covers most of the same capability groups ShadowMap does.

Evidence

Analyst and review density

Nine product lines across threat intelligence, brand protection and vulnerability management, sold as one platform.

Scale

Funded growth and a large published customer base

A procurement committee asking “who else runs this” gets a longer answer from Cyble than from us.

Consolidation

An endpoint product in the same stack

If the objective is fewer suppliers rather than deeper external evidence, an endpoint product sold alongside the external ones is a real advantage. ShadowMap has no endpoint product.

Where the overlap ends

Capability by capability

The first two rows are where Cyble is level with us or ahead. The rest are the ones worth a demo question.

ShadowMap and Cyble, capability by capability
Capability	Cyble	ShadowMap
Breadth of external coverage	Broad, across most capability groups.	Broad, across most capability groups.
No separation here. Verified against Cyble’s published product line, August 2026.
Threat intelligence	A founding capability and one they lead with.	Supporting context, correlated against the technology actually discovered on your estate. It is not our core category and we would not put ours up against theirs.
Both positions are the vendors’ own. Ours is published on our threat-intelligence page; theirs on their product pages. August 2026.
Offensive validation	Nothing in the line tests whether an exposure can actually be used. Exposure is predicted and prioritised.	Continuous Automated Red-Teaming tests exposure where it is safe and authorised, and states explicitly where it did not test.
Checkable against Cyble’s own published product line: there is no validation product among the named products. August 2026.
Takedown lifecycle	Takedowns are offered. No published provider directory and no published lifecycle states.	A published provider directory, and every lifecycle state published, including the ones where a provider refuses. Takedowns are unlimited, subject to fair use.
Verifiable both ways: ours is published on the site, theirs is absent from their published material. August 2026.
Licensing	Nine named products to license and renew.	One licence, one price, one renewal conversation.
Cyble publishes its product line on its own site; the count is theirs, not ours. August 2026.

ShadowMap and Cyble, capability by capability

Breadth of external coverage

Cyble: Broad, across most capability groups.
ShadowMap: Broad, across most capability groups.

No separation here. Verified against Cyble’s published product line, August 2026.

Threat intelligence

Cyble: A founding capability and one they lead with.
ShadowMap: Supporting context, correlated against the technology actually discovered on your estate. It is not our core category and we would not put ours up against theirs.

Both positions are the vendors’ own. Ours is published on our threat-intelligence page; theirs on their product pages. August 2026.

Offensive validation

Cyble: Nothing in the line tests whether an exposure can actually be used. Exposure is predicted and prioritised.
ShadowMap: Continuous Automated Red-Teaming tests exposure where it is safe and authorised, and states explicitly where it did not test.

Checkable against Cyble’s own published product line: there is no validation product among the named products. August 2026.

Takedown lifecycle

Cyble: Takedowns are offered. No published provider directory and no published lifecycle states.
ShadowMap: A published provider directory, and every lifecycle state published, including the ones where a provider refuses. Takedowns are unlimited, subject to fair use.

Verifiable both ways: ours is published on the site, theirs is absent from their published material. August 2026.

Licensing

Cyble: Nine named products to license and renew.
ShadowMap: One licence, one price, one renewal conversation.

Cyble publishes its product line on its own site; the count is theirs, not ours. August 2026.

The genuine version of this question

When to choose Cyble, and when to choose us

Three of these point at Cyble, and if one of them describes your evaluation you should buy theirs.

Their deal

Choose Cyble

Supplier consolidation is the objective: You want external risk and endpoint from one supplier on one paper trail. Cyble sells both. We sell one, and adding an endpoint vendor alongside us is a second procurement cycle.
The shortlist is scored on analyst and peer evidence: Badge counts and review density are a legitimate procurement input, and theirs is stronger than ours. If that is how the committee is scoring, find out in week one rather than week six.
Intelligence breadth is the primary purchase: If the requirement is the widest possible feed of what is happening rather than the tested state of your own estate, that is the product Cyble leads with and we would not claim to beat it.

Our deal

Choose ShadowMap

The question is what an attacker can actually use: A predicted risk is a better alert. A tested key is an answer. Where it is safe and authorised, exposure is probed and the result is written on the finding, including “not tested”.
One licence rather than a renewal calendar: Nine products is nine things to license, learn, integrate and renew. That cost is real and it is not on the feature grid.
Detection has to terminate in removal: Impersonation that ends in an alert is a ticket. Ours ends in a removal through a published provider directory, with every lifecycle state visible. Takedowns are unlimited, subject to fair use.

Sourcing

How this comparison was made

What this page is sourced from As of August 2026

Every claim about Cyble here is checkable on material Cyble publishes itself: product pages, analyst listings and their own positioning line.
Every figure on this page is either the vendor’s own published number or a Vendr transaction median. No ShadowMap figure appears anywhere: not a record count, not a provider count, not an accuracy figure, which we do not publish at all by policy.
Where the vendor is stronger, it is stated in their column and not softened.

Deliberately excluded

Analyst placements and review counts are not re-litigated. Cyble’s are stronger than ours.
Two products in Cyble’s line are outside our research. We describe the breadth of the line rather than naming products we cannot verify.
Cyble publishes no pricing anywhere. Nothing on this page estimates it.

Where to go next

The pages that answer the Cyble gaps directly

What the alternative stack costs Published list prices and Vendr transaction medians for assembling comparable coverage from point tools. Continuous Automated Red-Teaming The capability with no equivalent in Cyble’s line: the classes of finding it tests, the controls that bound a live test, and where it stops. Phishing and Domain Takedown The published provider directory and the full lifecycle, including the states where a removal fails.

Questions buyers actually ask

Before you shortlist Cyble

Is ShadowMap a Cyble alternative?

For most of what Cyble’s external products cover, yes. The overlap is real across most capability groups. It is not an alternative to their endpoint product, and if consolidating external risk and endpoint onto one supplier is the objective, Cyble covers ground we do not. Where the two separate is after the finding: exposure is tested where it is safe and authorised, and impersonation ends in a removal rather than an alert.

Cyble has far more reviews and analyst badges. Why look at ShadowMap at all?

Their review density is stronger than ours and we are not going to argue with it. What a badge count does not tell you is whether a finding was tested or only predicted. Put the same two questions to both vendors in the demo: show me a leaked credential you found and tell me whether it still opens anything; and show me the state history of a takedown that failed. The answers separate the products in a way the badges do not.

What does Cyble do that ShadowMap does not?

An endpoint product, and a breadth of threat intelligence we treat as supporting context rather than as our core category. There is also a practical point: Cyble names nine products, and if you have already licensed several of them, migration is a real cost.

Bring the Cyble evaluation down to a tested finding

One apex domain, two business days, a written snapshot. Run it alongside whatever Cyble has already shown you and compare the two on the same estate.

Request an exposure snapshot How to evaluate this