AnonymousSign in
Start from a neutral baseline and add what matters to you. Criteria are labeled by source — the platform baseline is architecture-neutral; buyer-contributed criteria are shown separately.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
Look for a clear breakdown of core vs. add-on coverage; DRP marketing often implies broader coverage than what's actually licensed by default.
Strong answers state a concrete average takedown time backed by a real customer, and clarify whether takedown is included or a paid service per incident.
Look for a described triage methodology and honest disclosure of how much is human-reviewed versus automated, since false positives are a common DRP complaint.
Genuine closed-forum access (often requiring human analyst infiltration/relationships) is a materially different and stronger capability than automated open-web crawling alone.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Look for closed-loop integration (auto-triggering credential reset or SOC investigation), not just a standalone DRP dashboard the SOC has to check separately.
Strong answers cover both public repo scanning and paste-site/leak-forum monitoring, since attackers use both.
Look for a clear per-executive scope and pricing model, and specifics on physical-threat chatter monitoring if claimed.
A vendor that can't give even a rough alert-volume expectation likely hasn't been tested at scale by real customers.
Mobile app-store takedowns follow a different process (and success rate) than web domain takedowns — ask for a distinct, mobile-specific figure rather than accepting a blended 'takedown rate' that obscures weaker mobile performance.
This is a more advanced capability than direct-brand monitoring alone — a vendor covering only the customer's own brand, not adjacent supply-chain impersonation risk, has a real scope gap.
Look for transparent incremental pricing; vendors who quote only a base package while brand/executive additions trigger unclear upsells create budget-planning risk.
A dedicated M&A-diligence engagement model (versus only ongoing continuous monitoring of the customer's own brand) is a genuinely different product use case worth confirming explicitly.
A real, documented API is materially more useful for a mature security team than portal-only access requiring manual checking and copy-paste into other systems.
Trend-over-time reporting suitable for board audiences is a distinct capability from a real-time alert feed built for analysts — ask specifically whether this exists as a built-in report.
Look for a specific answer on messaging-platform coverage and how the vendor actually gains and sustains access to closed criminal communities — this is a genuinely harder and more valuable capability than open-web monitoring.
Homoglyph/non-Latin-script impersonation is a real, commonly-missed attack vector — a vendor should give a specific answer on language/script coverage rather than an unqualified 'global coverage' claim.