Cyberhaven vs GTB Technologies
A side-by-side comparison on deployment model, data residency, licensing basis and security coverage. Structural facts are verifiable against vendor documentation; the scored dimensions are our assessment.
Cyberhaven
Cyberhaven
7.1
Average across eight dimensions
- Deployment
- SaaS only
- Licensing
- Per user
- Time to value
- Medium
- Segment
- Mid-market / enterprise
- G2
- 4.5 (18)
GTB Technologies
GTB Technologies
7.5
Average across eight dimensions
- Deployment
- Self-hosted
- Licensing
- Per endpoint or seat
- Time to value
- Complex
- Segment
- Mid-market / enterprise
- G2
- 4.3 (20)
Score by dimension
| Dimension | CH | GT |
|---|---|---|
| Data residency control | 3 | 9.5 |
| Pricing value | 6 | 7 |
| Detection accuracy | 8.5 | 8 |
| Response speed | 8 | 8 |
| Ease of setup | 7.5 | 6.5 |
| Management UX | 8.5 | 6.5 |
| Integration depth | 7.5 | 6.5 |
| Security coverage | 8 | 8 |
What the comparison says
Cyberhaven is SaaS only and GTB Technologies is self-hosted. Where your obligations dictate residency, that difference tends to settle the choice before any score is read.
Cyberhaven licenses on per user, GTB Technologies on per endpoint or seat. Neither bills on data volume, so the comparison is about what each licence includes rather than how much you send it.
Cyberhaven leads on ease of setup, management UX and integrations. GTB Technologies leads on residency and pricing value.
Cyberhaven
- +Traces data lineage rather than only matching content, so it catches transformed and renamed files.
- +Materially fewer false positives than pattern-matching approaches.
- +Investigation workflow shows the full path a file travelled.
- −Cloud-delivered with no self-hosted deployment.
- −Younger vendor with a smaller install base and less independent analyst coverage.
Best for Organisations where intellectual property leaves via transformation rather than obvious copying.
Watch out Assess vendor maturity and support depth alongside the technology.
GTB Technologies
- +Full on-premises deployment including air-gapped environments.
- +Inspects encrypted traffic at the network layer, which several competitors do not.
- +Covers endpoint, network and discovery from one platform.
- −Interface and reporting are dated compared with the newer vendors here.
- −Much smaller company, with correspondingly limited regional presence.
Best for Regulated or isolated environments where cloud inspection is not permitted.
Watch out Evaluate support responsiveness carefully given the vendor's size.
Evaluate nPro yourself
Free for up to 30 agents, no time limit, no credit card. Deploys on your own infrastructure in minutes.
More Cyberhaven comparisons
More GTB Technologies comparisons
Data last verified 2026-10-06. nPro publishes this comparison. Where nPro appears as one of the platforms listed, its card is marked and its scores are our own assessment. Third-party review scores are sourced from public vendor profiles. Structural facts are verifiable against each vendor's documentation: deployment model, licensing basis and residency.