Cyberleaf vs InfoGuard
Cyberleaf and InfoGuard are both Services firms that work with your existing tools. Cyberleaf targets SMB and Mid-market organizations, while InfoGuard serves Mid-market and Enterprise. Cyberleaf includes 5 attack surfaces in base pricing (Endpoint, Cloud, SaaS, Identity, Network), compared to 4 for InfoGuard (Endpoint, Cloud, Identity, Network).
Buyer brief
Cyberleaf and InfoGuard are both Services firms that work with your existing tools. Cyberleaf targets SMB and Mid-market organizations, while InfoGuard serves Mid-market and Enterprise. Cyberleaf includes 5 attack surfaces in base pricing (Endpoint, Cloud, SaaS, Identity, Network), compared to 4 for InfoGuard (Endpoint, Cloud, Identity, Network).
Cyberleaf offers broader coverage (5 surfaces vs. 4). InfoGuard may suit teams that need depth over breadth.
At a glance
| FIELD |  |  |
|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Growing businesses with 50-500 employees that have IT staff but no internal SOC | Swiss, German and Austrian buyers that want MDR from DACH-based SOCs |
| Price | Custom quote | Custom quote |
| Response authority | 2/6 actions · Configurable | 1/6 actions · Configurable |
| Stack | Works with existing stack | Works with existing stack |
| Data access | Dashboards | Dashboards |
| Warranty | None listed | 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
- Best fit
- Swiss, German and Austrian buyers that want MDR from DACH-based SOCs
- Price
- Custom quote
- Response authority
- 1/6 actions · Configurable
- Stack
- Works with existing stack
- Data access
- Dashboards
- Warranty
- None listed
Detailed comparison
| FIELD | CyberleafTECH-AGNOSTIC | InfoGuardTECH-AGNOSTIC |
|---|---|---|
| Fit | ||
| Target size | SMB, Mid-market | Mid-market, Enterprise |
| Sentiment | Mixed | Mixed |
| Your stack | ||
| Approach | Works with your tools | Works with your tools |
| EDR integrations | None listed | Customer endpoint telemetry |
| SIEM integrations | None listed | Customer log sources |
| Coverage | EPEndpoint: CoveredCloudCloud: CoveredIDIdentity: CoveredSaaSSaaS: CoveredNetNetwork: CoveredOTOT/IoT: Not covered | EPEndpoint: CoveredCloudCloud: CoveredIDIdentity: CoveredSaaSSaaS: LimitedNetNetwork: CoveredOTOT/IoT: Limited |
| Response | ||
| Response type | Active Remediation | Active Remediation |
| Approval policy | Configurable | Configurable |
| Response actions | IsolateCustom playbooks | Custom playbooks |
| IR included | Separate | ✓ Included |
| Cost | ||
| Price range | Custom quote. No public per-endpoint, per-user or package price found. | Not published |
| Minimum seats | None | None |
| Breach warranty | – | – |
| More details | ||
| Requires own agent | No | No |
| Endpoints | ✓ Included | ✓ Included |
| Cloud workloads | ✓ Included | ✓ Included |
| Identity | ✓ Included | ✓ Included |
| SaaS apps | ✓ Included | ~ Limited |
| Network | ✓ Included | ✓ Included |
| OT/ICS | Not offered | ~ Limited |
| Threat hunting | ✓ Included | ✓ Included |
| Response SLA | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| 24/7 coverage | ✓ | ✓ |
| Pricing model | Custom monthly pricing based on environment size and service needs. MSP partner pricing is described as predictable per-client pricing. | Custom quote. InfoGuard does not publish MDR package pricing. |
| Hidden cost warnings | 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. | Public pages do not publish MDR pricing, contract minimums or service-credit language.. Named autonomous response actions are not published, so response authority should be written into the contract.. InfoGuard offers both Managed SOC and Co-Managed SOC, so buyer-side staffing and responsibility can vary by model.. Data can stay at the customer premises or in Swiss data centres, which may change architecture and retention cost.. Incident Response Retainer exists as a separate offer, so buyers should confirm exactly what incident-response work is included in MDR. |
| Data portability | Partial | Partial |
| Contract terms | Annual, 24 months, 36 months, Custom | Custom, Managed SOC, Co-Managed SOC, Incident Response Retainer |
| Channels | PortalEmailPhone | PortalEmailPhone |
| Data access | Dashboards | Dashboards |
| Dedicated analyst | – | – |
| SOC regions | North America | Europe |
| Onboarding | Most deployments are described as fully operational within weeks. Exact timeline depends on the customer environment and sales order. | InfoGuard's Cyber Defence brochure states 4 weeks for structured SOC onboarding. Buyers should confirm which log sources, sensors and response playbooks are included in that onboarding scope. |
| Industry focus | Defense Industrial BaseHealthcareFinancial ServicesTechnologySaaSPrivate EquityGovernment Contractors | Financial ServicesInsuranceManufacturingEnergyHealthcareRetailService ProvidersPublic Sector |
| MTTD | Not published | Not published |
| MTTR | Not published | Not published |
| Community view | 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. | No meaningful MDR-specific buyer-review signal was found in major English-language review communities during this pass. The public buyer case rests on InfoGuard's Swiss and German SOC delivery, 90+ SOC and CSIRT experts, open XDR platform, data-residency options and incident-response credentials. Buyers should validate pricing, response authority, named integrations and exact co-managed responsibilities directly. |
| Compliance | SOC 2CMMCNIST 800-171HIPAAPCI DSSISO 27001ITAR | ISO 27001ISAE 3000 Type 2GDPRSwiss DSG |
| Certifications | SOC 2 Type IICyberAB Registered Practitioner Organization | ISO/IEC 27001:2022ISO 14001ISAE 3000 Type 2-audited Cyber Defence CenterBSI-qualified APT Response service providerFIRST member |
| Founded | 2010 | 2001 |
| Data retention | Not published. Cyberleaf says it indemnifies customers from license and data ingestion costs, but retention period and export terms were not found. | InfoGuard says data is stored exclusively at the customer's premises or in its redundant data centres in Switzerland. No standard public MDR retention period was found. |
| API available | – | – |
| Website | Visit → | Visit → |
FAQ
What is the main difference between Cyberleaf and InfoGuard?
Cyberleaf is a Services firm that is technology-agnostic (works with your existing tools). InfoGuard is a Services firm that is technology-agnostic (works with your existing tools). Cyberleaf covers 5 attack surfaces in base pricing vs. 4 for InfoGuard.
How do Cyberleaf and InfoGuard differ in response capabilities?
Cyberleaf supports 2 autonomous actions (custom playbooks, endpoint isolation) and approval is configurable. InfoGuard supports 1 autonomous actions (custom playbooks) and approval is configurable. Incident response is not included with Cyberleaf and included with InfoGuard.
How does Cyberleaf pricing compare to InfoGuard?
Cyberleaf pricing: Custom quote. No public per-endpoint, per-user or package price found.. InfoGuard pricing: Not published. 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.. Watch for with InfoGuard: Public pages do not publish MDR pricing, contract minimums or service-credit language.; Named autonomous response actions are not published, so response authority should be written into the contract..
Should I choose Cyberleaf or InfoGuard?
Choose Cyberleaf if: growing businesses with 50-500 employees that have IT staff but no internal SOC. Choose InfoGuard if: swiss, German and Austrian buyers that want MDR from DACH-based SOCs. Cyberleaf is not ideal for buyers requiring public pricing before engaging sales. InfoGuard is not ideal for buyers that need public MDR pricing before 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.