Cipher vs Cyberleaf
Cipher and Cyberleaf are both Services firms that work with your existing tools. Cipher targets Mid-market and Enterprise organizations, while Cyberleaf serves SMB and Mid-market. Cipher includes 0 attack surfaces in base pricing (), compared to 5 for Cyberleaf (Endpoint, Cloud, SaaS, Identity, Network).
Buyer brief
Cipher and Cyberleaf are both Services firms that work with your existing tools. Cipher targets Mid-market and Enterprise organizations, while Cyberleaf serves SMB and Mid-market. Cipher includes 0 attack surfaces in base pricing (), compared to 5 for Cyberleaf (Endpoint, Cloud, SaaS, Identity, Network).
Cyberleaf offers broader coverage (5 surfaces vs. 0). Cipher may suit teams that need depth over breadth.
At a glance
| FIELD |  |  |
|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Mid-market and enterprise buyers that want a managed service layered over existing security tools | Growing businesses with 50-500 employees that have IT staff but no internal SOC |
| Price | Custom quote | Custom quote |
| Response authority | 0/6 actions · Approval required | 2/6 actions · Configurable |
| Stack | Works with existing stack | Works with existing stack |
| Data access | Dashboards | Dashboards |
| Warranty | None listed | None listed |
- Best fit
- Mid-market and enterprise buyers that want a managed service layered over existing security tools
- Price
- Custom quote
- Response authority
- 0/6 actions · Approval required
- Stack
- Works with existing stack
- Data access
- Dashboards
- Warranty
- None listed
- Best fit
- Growing businesses with 50-500 employees that have IT staff but no internal SOC
- Price
- Custom quote
- Response authority
- 2/6 actions · Configurable
- Stack
- Works with existing stack
- Data access
- Dashboards
- Warranty
- None listed
Detailed comparison
| FIELD | CipherTECH-AGNOSTIC | CyberleafTECH-AGNOSTIC |
|---|---|---|
| Fit | ||
| Target size | Mid-market, Enterprise | SMB, Mid-market |
| Sentiment | Mixed | Mixed |
| Your stack | ||
| Approach | Works with your tools | Works with your tools |
| EDR integrations | Customer EDR | None listed |
| SIEM integrations | None listed | None listed |
| Coverage | EPEndpoint: LimitedCloudCloud: LimitedIDIdentity: Not coveredSaaSSaaS: Not coveredNetNetwork: LimitedOTOT/IoT: Not covered | EPEndpoint: CoveredCloudCloud: CoveredIDIdentity: CoveredSaaSSaaS: CoveredNetNetwork: CoveredOTOT/IoT: Not covered |
| Response | ||
| Response type | Guided Response | Active Remediation |
| Approval policy | Approval Required | Configurable |
| Response actions | Alert and notify only | IsolateCustom playbooks |
| IR included | Separate | Separate |
| Cost | ||
| Price range | Not published | Custom quote. No public per-endpoint, per-user or package price found. |
| Minimum seats | None | None |
| Breach warranty | – | – |
| More details | ||
| Requires own agent | No | No |
| Endpoints | ~ Limited | ✓ Included |
| Cloud workloads | ~ Limited | ✓ Included |
| Identity | Not offered | ✓ Included |
| SaaS apps | Not offered | ✓ Included |
| Network | ~ Limited | ✓ Included |
| OT/ICS | Not offered | Not offered |
| Threat hunting | ✓ Included | ✓ Included |
| Response SLA | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| 24/7 coverage | ✓ | ✓ |
| Pricing model | Custom quote. Cipher does not publish xMDR package pricing. | Custom monthly pricing based on environment size and service needs. MSP partner pricing is described as predictable per-client pricing. |
| Hidden cost warnings | Cipher says xMDR works with the existing technology stack, so buyers should confirm which tools are included in the quote and what integration work is extra.. Public pages do not publish response SLAs, contract minimums or service-credit language.. The site names EDR and IPS/IDS integration but does not publish named vendor integrations.. Response wording is broad, so buyers should document pre-approved actions before go-live. | The website says managed cybersecurity includes proactive services, while the public service agreement excludes some advanced work unless separately contracted.. No public MDR-specific SLA table was found.. The public agreement references annual, 24-month and 36-month terms, with renewal terms and add-on ordering handled through the sales order.. Remote access, collectors, virtual machines or servers may be required to deliver service, and some access methods can add charges. |
| Data portability | Partial | Partial |
| Contract terms | Custom, xMDR Services, xMDR Platform | Annual, 24 months, 36 months, Custom |
| Channels | Portal | PortalEmailPhone |
| Data access | Dashboards | Dashboards |
| Dedicated analyst | – | – |
| SOC regions | North AmericaEuropeLATAM | North America |
| Onboarding | Cipher advertises 20 days for full service activation, but buyers should confirm scope and contract timing. | Most deployments are described as fully operational within weeks. Exact timeline depends on the customer environment and sales order. |
| Industry focus | HealthcareProfessional ServicesPayments | Defense Industrial BaseHealthcareFinancial ServicesTechnologySaaSPrivate EquityGovernment Contractors |
| MTTD | Not published | Not published |
| MTTR | Not published | Not published |
| Community view | No meaningful MDR-specific buyer-review signal was found in major English-language review communities during this pass. The public buyer case rests on Cipher's Prosegur ownership, xMDR Platform, 24/7 SOC claim, six-SOC footprint, portal access and existing-stack positioning. Buyers should validate pricing, response authority, named integrations and SOC delivery details directly. | Cyberleaf has a clear current vendor story, public customer language and partner positioning, but little independent MDR review volume was found in this pass. The strongest evidence is vendor-controlled, so buyer validation should lean on references, a proof of value and careful review of the sales order. |
| Compliance | ISO 27001ISO 22301ISO 20000ISO 9001SOC 1SOC 2PCI DSSCREST | SOC 2CMMCNIST 800-171HIPAAPCI DSSISO 27001ITAR |
| Certifications | ISO 27001ISO 22301ISO 20000ISO 9001SOC ISOC IIPCI QSAPCI ASVCRESTTF-CSIRTCIPHER-CSIRT RFC2350 | SOC 2 Type IICyberAB Registered Practitioner Organization |
| Founded | – | 2010 |
| Data retention | Cipher says all platform information is online 24/7 and available from any device. No public standard MDR data-retention period was found. | Not published. Cyberleaf says it indemnifies customers from license and data ingestion costs, but retention period and export terms were not found. |
| API available | – | – |
| Website | Visit → | Visit → |
FAQ
What is the main difference between Cipher and Cyberleaf?
Cipher is a Services firm that is technology-agnostic (works with your existing tools). Cyberleaf is a Services firm that is technology-agnostic (works with your existing tools). Cipher covers 0 attack surfaces in base pricing vs. 5 for Cyberleaf.
How do Cipher and Cyberleaf differ in response capabilities?
Cipher supports 0 autonomous actions (none) and requires approval before acting. Cyberleaf supports 2 autonomous actions (custom playbooks, endpoint isolation) and approval is configurable.
How does Cipher pricing compare to Cyberleaf?
Cipher pricing: Not published. Cyberleaf pricing: Custom quote. No public per-endpoint, per-user or package price found.. Watch for with Cipher: Cipher says xMDR works with the existing technology stack, so buyers should confirm which tools are included in the quote and what integration work is extra.; Public pages do not publish response SLAs, contract minimums or service-credit language.. Watch for with Cyberleaf: The website says managed cybersecurity includes proactive services, while the public service agreement excludes some advanced work unless separately contracted.; No public MDR-specific SLA table was found..
Should I choose Cipher or Cyberleaf?
Choose Cipher if: mid-market and enterprise buyers that want a managed service layered over existing security tools. Choose Cyberleaf if: growing businesses with 50-500 employees that have IT staff but no internal SOC. Cipher is not ideal for buyers that need public MDR pricing before sales. Cyberleaf is not ideal for buyers requiring public pricing before engaging sales.
Daylight Security
AI-native MDR for buyers comparing active remediation across endpoint, cloud, identity, and SaaS. Daylight works with existing EDR/SIEM stacks and uses ChatOps-native collaboration, so it can be a useful third reference point in this comparison.