Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Digital Shadows vs ReliaQuest GreyMatter comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Digital Shadows
Ranking in Digital Risk Protection
7th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ReliaQuest GreyMatter
Ranking in Digital Risk Protection
21st
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Managed Detection and Response (MDR) (27th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (38th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Digital Risk Protection category, the mindshare of Digital Shadows is 4.5%, down from 7.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReliaQuest GreyMatter is 1.9%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Digital Risk Protection Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Digital Shadows4.5%
ReliaQuest GreyMatter1.9%
Other93.6%
Digital Risk Protection
 

Featured Reviews

DavidJones7 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Content at Pharmaflow
Has required additional context for alerts but supports monitoring impersonation and threat activity effectively
I do not rate Digital Shadows a nine or ten because there are many things that need improvement. The information we get is kind of generic. For instance, for impersonation, we don't have much detail on their history, when it was used or how it was misused. Those further details would be really helpful, but the information we receive is basic, such as when it was last registered and when it was updated, without more insight about the malicious factors. For basic support from Digital Shadows, my impression is that it is six to seven because many times we see duplications or bugs, and the quality of the alerts is not up to the mark. We have escalated many times, but we do not receive solid responses from them in terms of fixes. Digital Shadows should focus on the engineering side rather than the support aspect because support is there to help us get updates, but in terms of quick fixes, it is not as responsive. The need for improvement lies more with the engineering part in fixing issues, which is linked to support.
MK
Senior Security Analyst at Tata Consultancy
Unified security monitoring has reduced alert fatigue and improves proactive threat hunting
I use real-time monitoring in ReliaQuest GreyMatter, which significantly improves my security posture. The unified interface helps reduce alert fatigue. I would estimate it saves around 20% in alert fatigue reduction. The automated threat hunting capabilities in ReliaQuest GreyMatter help me stay ahead of threats. The machine learning algorithm benefits my threat intelligence by providing deeper insights and predictions. I use various metrics to rate the success of the predictive threat intelligence in ReliaQuest GreyMatter.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most effective feature for threat intelligence, in my opinion, is collecting impersonating websites."
"The most effective feature for threat intelligence, in my opinion, is collecting impersonating websites."
"Digital Shadows helps our organization identify and mitigate cyber threats through their crawling of the internet, gathering information, pivoting it, and then sending those alerts to us which we monitor from our SIEM tool."
"ReliaQuest GreyMatter has helped us to reduce security incidents by 89%, which is a significant amount of incidents we have seen."
"ReliaQuest GreyMatter saves around 60% of time or resources."
 

Cons

"The solution doesn't pick up all the brands of the URLs. I have a relatively small company name, however, the solution still misses a certain number of URLs with my company's name in it that are impersonating websites. It's not very comprehensive, to be honest."
"The solution doesn't pick up all the brands of the URLs."
"For basic support from Digital Shadows, my impression is that it is six to seven because many times we see duplications or bugs, and the quality of the alerts is not up to the mark."
"Areas that have room for improvement include user interface and integration."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Digital Risk Protection solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Engineering Company
6%
Computer Software Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Retailer
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Digital Shadows?
Regarding the cost of Digital Shadows, I think prices are a bit higher. The information provided is already available; some of it is paid information. However, considering all the information they ...
What needs improvement with Digital Shadows?
I do not rate Digital Shadows a nine or ten because there are many things that need improvement. The information we get is kind of generic. For instance, for impersonation, we don't have much detai...
What is your primary use case for Digital Shadows?
Our main use cases for Digital Shadows are mainly using it for threat intel. For instance, we have our domain listed on Digital Shadows. Whenever we see any sort of impersonation domain registratio...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Accenture, Pret A Manger, Human Rights Watch
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about ZeroFOX, Recorded Future, Proofpoint and others in Digital Risk Protection. Updated: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.