No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

GitGuardian Platform vs Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal 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
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (12th), Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (5th)
Kaspersky Threat Intelligen...
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (31st)
 

Mindshare comparison

GitGuardian Platform and Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. GitGuardian Platform is designed for Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) and holds a mindshare of 3.2%, up 0.1% compared to last year.
Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal, on the other hand, focuses on Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP), holds 1.5% mindshare, up 1.0% since last year.
Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
GitGuardian Platform3.2%
Saviynt Identity Cloud12.4%
Astrix9.6%
Other74.8%
Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM)
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal1.5%
Recorded Future6.4%
CrowdStrike Falcon4.4%
Other87.7%
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
 

Featured Reviews

Ney Roman - PeerSpot reviewer
DevOps Engineer at Deuna
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.
Abdelrahman Hussein - PeerSpot reviewer
CTI & Threat Hunter at Telecom Egypt
Provides useful real-time threat intelligence features but has limited capabilities
We use the product to search for IoCs. It is a good tool, but we do not use all its capabilities. We have only done a POC of the product. The real-time threat intelligence features are useful. The tool has good capabilities. It has a database of IoCs The solution is limited. I have been using…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The stability of the GitGuardian Platform is excellent."
"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."
"I like GitGuardian's instant response. When you have an incident, it's reported immediately. The interface gives you a great overview of your current leaked secrets."
"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."
"We have scanned over 20,000 commits in the last month and found 256 secrets that would have made it to production."
"GitGuardian Platform scans every commit, branch, pull request, and the entire repository history, which informs us about security gaps and code issues."
"Before we had GitGuardian we were blind; we had a lot of false positives with other products, but now GitGuardian has fewer false positives, its secrets detection is more accurate, and it has decreased our false positives by a minimum of 20 percent."
"Some of our teams have hundreds of repositories, so filtering by team saves a lot of time and effort."
"The solution improved our overall security posture."
"The real-time threat intelligence features are useful."
 

Cons

"The main thing for me is the customization for some of the healthcare-specific identifiers that we want to validate. There should be some ability, which is coming in the near future, to have custom identifiers. Being in healthcare, we have pretty specific patterns that we need to match for PHI or PII. Having that would add a little bit extra to it."
"They could give a developer access to a dashboard for their team's repositories that just shows their repository secrets. I think more could be exposed to developers."
"I'm excited about the possibility of Public Postman scanning being integrated with GitGuardian in the future. Additionally, I'm interested in exploring the potential use of honeytokens, which seems like a compelling approach to lure and identify attackers."
"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."
"It took us a while to get new patterns introduced into the pattern reporting process."
"GitGuardian Platform has the occasional false positive in testing."
"There has been a little bit of downtime of late, and it has been reasonably impactful when it's not been scanning."
"GitGuardian could have more detailed information on what software engineers can do. It only provides some highly generic feedback when a secret is detected. They should have outside documentation. We send this to our software engineers, who are still doing the commits. It's the wrong way to work, but they are accustomed to doing it this way. When they go into that ticket, they see a few instructions that might be confusing. If I see a leaked secret committed two years ago, it's not enough to undo that commit. I need to go in there, change all my code to utilize GitHub secrets, and go on AWS to validate my key."
"The solution is limited."
"More insights would be helpful. We have multiple solutions for threat intelligence. If someone has a bigger view or full eye on all the incidents, it will be beneficial."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We don't have a huge number of users, but its yearly rate was quite reasonable when compared to other per-seat solutions that we looked at... Having a free plan for a small number of users was really great. If you're a small team, I don't see why you wouldn't want to get started with it."
"It's competitively priced compared to others. Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are very happy with the value we get."
"It's a little bit expensive."
"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 internal side is cheap per user. It is annual pricing based on the number of users."
"The pricing is reasonable. GitGuardian is one of the most recent security tools we've adopted. When it came time to renew it, there was no doubt about it. It is licensed per developer, so it scales nicely with the number of repos that we have. We can create new repositories and break up work. It isn't scaling based on the amount of data it's consuming."
"The pricing for GitGuardian is fair."
"I compared the solution to a couple of other solutions, and I think it is very competitively priced."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) solutions are best for your needs.
910,956 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
16%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Construction Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Outsourcing Company
15%
Healthcare Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise25
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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 primary use case for GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
Our current use cases for GitGuardian Platform involve monitoring external and internal GitHub and GitLab, Bitbucket, and other code repositories that it supports for secrets.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

GitGuardian Internal Monitoring, GitGuardian Public Monitoring
Kaspersky Threat Intelligence
 

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.
Telefonica, VimpelCom, Monclick, Ezenta
Find out what your peers are saying about One Identity, Astrix Security, Entro Security and others in Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM). Updated: August 2026.
910,956 professionals have used our research since 2012.