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

GitGuardian Platform vs Group-IB Threat Intelligence comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 2026

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

GitGuardian Platform
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (6th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (4th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (8th), Software Supply Chain Security (5th), DevSecOps (4th), Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (2nd)
Group-IB Threat Intelligence
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
11th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) category, the mindshare of GitGuardian Platform is 1.2%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Group-IB Threat Intelligence is 2.0%, down from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
GitGuardian Platform1.2%
Group-IB Threat Intelligence2.0%
Other96.8%
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
 

Featured Reviews

Ney Roman - PeerSpot reviewer
DevOps Engineer at Deuna App
Facilitates efficient secret management and improves development processes
Regarding the exceptions in GitGuardian Platform, we know that within the platform we have a way to accept a path or a directory from a repository, but it is not that visible at the very beginning. You have to figure out where to search for it, and once you have it, it is really good, but it is not that visible at the beginning. This should be made more exposed. The documentation could be better because it was not that comprehensively documented. When we started working with GitGuardian Platform, it was difficult to find some specific use cases, and we were not aware of that. It might have improved now, but at that time, it was not something we would recommend.
ALEX LOGINOV - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Partner at INTEGRISEC CONSULTING
Completely satisfied with the way the report is prepared and easy to setup
We did use it for threat detection, but not directly. I analyze multiple reports, including this one, and assess my client's infrastructure. I identify threats outlined in the reports that may be relevant to the client's infrastructure, and then I help them build detection use cases. There's no automation. We don't do anything automatically at this point. It's all manual and based on analysis. I can't integrate it into automatic feeds because the report outlines threats that may not be relevant to the client's infrastructure. So, I do the analysis and integrate it manually. I'm completely satisfied with the way the report is prepared. It's a good report.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"My impression of the GitGuardian Platform's capability to detect secrets in real time has been really amazing, because it lets us protect or block the pipelines in which we deploy new applications so we can acknowledge when a secret is hardcoded in a repository, or when we have already hardcoded secrets within templates in our repos."
"You can also assign tasks to specific teams or people to complete, such as assigning something to the "blue team" or saying that this person needs to do this, and that person needs to do that. That is a great feature because you can actually manage your team internally in GitGuardian."
"It enables us to identify leaks that happened in the past and remediate current leaks as they happen in near real-time. When I say "near real-time," I mean within minutes. These are industry-leading remediation timelines for credential leaks. Previously, it might have taken companies years to get credentials detected or remediated. We can do it in minutes."
"GitGuardian has many features that fit our use cases. We have our internal policies on secret exposure, and our code is hosted on GitLab, so we need to prevent secrets from reaching GitLab because our customers worry that GitLab is exposed. One of the great features is the pre-receive hook. It prevents commits from being pushed to the repository by activating the hook on the remotes, which stops the developers from pushing to the remote. The secrets don't reach GitLab, and it isn't exposed."
"Some of our teams have hundreds of repositories, so filtering by team saves a lot of time and effort."
"It's fantastic. We have checked a couple of other vendors and seen their results, which are quite inferior to the amount of detail that the GitGuardian Platform provides. With instantaneous notifications connected to our Slack platform, it allows us to deal quickly with incidents."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to automate both downloading the repository and generating a Software Bill of Materials directly from it."
"The most valuable feature is the alerts when secrets are leaked and we can look at particular repositories to see if there are any outstanding problems. In addition, the solution's detection capabilities seem very broad. We have no concerns there."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the sandbox."
"The totality of the recordings is quite important. The networks, the new threat actors, the new methods, tactics, techniques, and procedures."
"Threat Intelligence's best feature is threat activation."
"The most valuable Group-IB Threat Intelligence features are their detections, especially in terms of account and card information leakage. This data sets Group-IB apart from some of the competition."
"We have found the site intelligence features to be the most valuable."
 

Cons

"The analytics in GitGuardian Platform have a significant opportunity to better reflect the value provided to security teams and demonstrate actual activity occurring. While the self-healing capability and proactive developer actions are important features, the analytics do not provide information around this activity."
"There is room for improvement in its integration for bug-tracking. It should be more direct. They have invested a lot in user management, but they need to invest in integrations. That is a real lack."
"It took us a while to get new patterns introduced into the pattern reporting process."
"I would like to see more fine-grained access controls when tickets are assigned for incidents. I would like the ability to provide more controls to the team leads or the product managers so that they can drive what we, the AppSec team, are doing."
"We have encountered occasional difficulties with the Single Sign-On process."
"The documentation could be improved because when we started working with GitGuardian, it was difficult to find specific use cases."
"For some repositories, there are a lot of incidents. For example, one repository says 255 occurrences, so I assume these are 255 alerts and nobody is doing anything about them. These could be false positives. However, I cannot assess it correctly, because I haven't been closing these false positives myself. From the dashboard, I can see that for some of the repositories, there have been a lot of closing of these occurrences, so I would assume there are a lot of false positives. A ballpark estimate would be 60% being false positives. One of the arguments from the developers against this tool is the number of false positives."
"One of our current challenges is that the GitGuardian platform identifies encrypted secrets and statements as sensitive information even though they're secured."
"Threat Intelligence's OT security could be improved."
"As the landscape evolves, they could provide a little more detail or specificity to map it to the MITRE ATT&CK framework."
"Group-IB Threat Intelligence should improve integration for SIEM and SOAR solutions."
"The lack of appliance-based or on-premise options for this solution is its biggest downfall. Clients request them often."
"The web intelligence could be improved. It is not as good as the intelligence from other solutions."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing and licensing are fair. It isn't very expensive and it's good value."
"You get what you pay for. It's one of the more expensive solutions, but it is very good, and the low false positive rate is a really appealing factor."
"With GitGuardian, we didn't need any middlemen."
"It's fairly priced, as it performs a lot of analysis and is a valuable tool."
"I am only aware of the base price. I do not know what happened with our purchasing team in discussions with GitGuardian. I was not privy to the overall contract, but in terms of the base MSRP price, I found it reasonable."
"The pricing for GitGuardian is fair."
"The internal side is cheap per user. It is annual pricing based on the number of users."
"It could be cheaper. When GitHub secrets monitoring solution goes to general access and general availability, GitGuardian might be in a little bit of trouble from the competition, and maybe then they might lower their prices. The GitGuardian solution is great. I'm just concerned that they're not GitHub."
"Threat Intelligence is costly, but it gives value for money."
"The pricing is alright. It's right on the mark."
"Group-IB Threat Intelligence's pricing is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
16%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise13
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
It's also worth mentioning that GitGuardian is unique because they have a free tier that we've been using for the first twelve months. It provides full functionality for smaller teams. We're a smal...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
It's competitively priced compared to others. Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are happy with the value we get.
What needs improvement with GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
GitGuardian Platform does what it is designed to do, but it still generates many false positives. We utilize the automated playbooks from GitGuardian Platform, and we are enhancing them. We will pr...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Group-IB Threat Intelligence?
The pricing is alright. It's right on the mark. It costs money, but it's not too high. It's reasonable. For me, it's a reasonable price for the quality of the product.
What needs improvement with Group-IB Threat Intelligence?
As the landscape evolves, they could provide a little more detail or specificity to map it to the MITRE ATT&CK framework. Even though it is done in the report, it could be done better.
What is your primary use case for Group-IB Threat Intelligence?
I used it to build the strategic threat forecast. The annual forecast for clients.
 

Also Known As

GitGuardian Internal Monitoring, GitGuardian Public Monitoring
No data available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Widely adopted by developer communities, GitGuardian is used by over 600 thousand developers and leading companies, including Snowflake, Orange, Iress, Mirantis, Maven Wave, ING, BASF, and Bouygues Telecom.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about GitGuardian Platform vs. Group-IB Threat Intelligence and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.