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

Brand Oriented Digital Risk Protection vs Digital Shadows 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

Brand Oriented Digital Risk...
Ranking in Digital Risk Protection
25th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Digital Shadows
Ranking in Digital Risk Protection
6th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Digital Risk Protection category, the mindshare of Brand Oriented Digital Risk Protection is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Digital Shadows is 4.5%, down from 9.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Digital Risk Protection Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Digital Shadows4.5%
Brand Oriented Digital Risk Protection0.4%
Other95.1%
Digital Risk Protection
 

Featured Reviews

Use Brand Oriented Digital Risk Protection?
Share your opinion
DavidJones7 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Digital Risk Protection solutions are best for your needs.
870,697 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Accenture, Pret A Manger, Human Rights Watch
Find out what your peers are saying about Recorded Future, ZeroFOX, Proofpoint and others in Digital Risk Protection. Updated: September 2025.
870,697 professionals have used our research since 2012.