SaaS Ranking
Menu

Searchlight Cyber: what they publish

slcyber.io · Threat intelligence · checked 2026-10-14

26/100EBand E

Rank 12 of 35 in Threat intelligence, where the median is 17.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Latest check: 2026-10-14. How the score works.

Evidence at a glance

Choose a check to see its source, date and scope.

Not found means not found at the addresses we checked. Not measured means we could not complete the check.

Start a vendor reviewDownload evidence (CSV)

Overview

4 days since the newest dated result, 4 since the oldest. 12 of 12 criteria have a measured result in the last 30 days. Failed checks and undated results are excluded.

Evidence freshness is a statement about our measurement and is kept apart from the transparency score, which is frozen at v1. How good our own measurement is.

Transparency labelsaas-ranking.com

Searchlight Cyber

slcyber.io · Threat intelligence

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
E 26of 100 Rank 12 of 35

Published commitments2 of 9 found

Measured behaviour1 of 3 found

Checked 2026-10-14. Every line links the page we found it on. A cross means we found nothing at the addresses we checked, not that the vendor has no such document. A transparency score, not a product rating.

Downloads include all checks, source URLs, dates and the snapshot ID for your procurement file. We do not issue badges.

The label is the whole measurement in one object: every criterion with its weight, the band, and the date. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Every line in it links the page we found the result on, or lists the addresses we checked. A cross means we found nothing there, not that Searchlight Cyber has no such document.

Where Searchlight Cyber sits in Threat intelligence

  1. A0 0%
  2. B1 3%
  3. C0 0%
  4. D3 9%
  5. E9 26%
  6. F22 63%
35 vendors with a score; 3 more without a score because we could measure too little. Bands have fixed thresholds, see how the score works.

The band of Searchlight Cyber is marked. Vendors without a score are the ones where we could measure too few criteria to rank them – a gap on our side, counted separately.

What Searchlight Cyber states

The exact figures and names we read off the pages linked below, with the sentence they stand in. This is what they publish, not what we verified about their systems.

Gaps, heaviest first

✗

Data processing agreement (DPA)

weight 3 of 3

No data processing agreement found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://slcyber.io/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://slcyber.io/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://slcyber.io/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://slcyber.io/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://slcyber.io/legal/data-processing-addendum – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://slcyber.io/legal/gdpr – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://slcyber.io/trust/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://slcyber.io/privacy/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data processing agreement in Threat intelligence: 5 of 36 companies

✗

Subprocessors: the published list

weight 3 of 3

No subprocessor list found.

Checked 7 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://slcyber.io/legal/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://slcyber.io/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://slcyber.io/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://slcyber.io/legal/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://slcyber.io/trust/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://slcyber.io/privacy/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://slcyber.io/legal/subprocessor-list – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Subprocessor list in Threat intelligence: 3 of 36 companies

✗

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

No public status page found.

Checked 3 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 3 addresses we checked
  1. https://status.slcyber.io/ – The name "status.slcyber.io" could not be resolved.
  2. https://slcyber.io/status – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://slcyber.io.statuspage.io/ – Could not be fetched: fetch failed.

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Status page with history in Threat intelligence: 5 of 36 companies

✗

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

No public pricing with figures found.

Checked 5 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 5 addresses we checked
  1. https://slcyber.io/pricing – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://slcyber.io/pricing/ – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://slcyber.io/plans – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://slcyber.io/en/pricing – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://slcyber.io/pricing-plans – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Public pricing in Threat intelligence: 6 of 35 companies

✗weight 2 of 3

Third-party requests seen on the first load, before any interaction.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-14.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://slcyber.io/ – third-party requests before any interaction: api-eu1.hubapi.com, bat.bing.com, bat.bing.net, cdn.jsdelivr.net, cdn.prod.website-files.com, cdnjs.cloudflare.com, cm.g.doubleclick.net, connect.facebook.net, consent.cookiebot.com, consentcdn.cookiebot.com, cta-eu1.hubspot.com, d.adroll.com, d3e54v103j8qbb.cloudfront.net, dsum-sec.casalemedia.com, eb2.3lift.com, forms-eu1.hscollectedforms.net, ib.adnxs.com, ibc-flow.techtarget.com, image2.pubmatic.com, js-eu1.hs-analytics.net, js-eu1.hs-banner.com, js-eu1.hs-scripts.com, js-eu1.hsadspixel.net, js-eu1.hscollectedforms.net, js-eu1.hubspot.com, ml314.com, pagead2.googlesyndication.com, perf-eu1.hsforms.com, pixel.rubiconproject.com, pixel.tapad.com, ps.eyeota.net, px.ads.linkedin.com, region1.google-analytics.com, s.adroll.com, scripts.clarity.ms, scripts.miscreants.dev, seo-fixer.writesonic.com, snap.licdn.com, sync.outbrain.com, sync.taboola.com, trk.techtarget.com, us-u.openx.net, www.clarity.ms, www.googletagmanager.com, x.bidswitch.net

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in Threat intelligence: 4 of 38 companies

✗

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

No commitment to give notice before subprocessors change found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://slcyber.io/legal/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://slcyber.io/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://slcyber.io/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://slcyber.io/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://slcyber.io/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://slcyber.io/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://slcyber.io/trust/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://slcyber.io/legal/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in Threat intelligence: 4 of 35 companies

✗

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

No named certification found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://slcyber.io/security – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://slcyber.io/trust – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://slcyber.io/trust-center – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://slcyber.io/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://slcyber.io/legal/security – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://trust.slcyber.io/ – The name "trust.slcyber.io" could not be resolved.

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Certifications named in Threat intelligence: 7 of 37 companies

✗

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

No uptime figure found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://slcyber.io/legal/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://slcyber.io/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://slcyber.io/legal/service-level-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://slcyber.io/trust/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://slcyber.io/uptime – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://slcyber.io/legal/uptime-sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Uptime SLA with a figure in Threat intelligence: 3 of 35 companies

✗

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

No security.txt found.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-14.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://slcyber.io/.well-known/security.txt – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: security.txt (RFC 9116) in Threat intelligence: 5 of 36 companies

Evidence

The full source lists sit behind these two groups, so that the answer above stays readable.

Published, with a source 3
✓

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

The hosting location is stated on a public page.

  • Locations named next to the hosting wording United Kingdom. This does not establish the company’s headquarters.
    Show the exact wording

    A4.1.1 MySQL Customer login information is stored in a MySQL database that is held in the United Kingdom or EU.

    Read at https://www.slcyber.io/privacy-policy

Source: https://www.slcyber.io/privacy-policy · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Data location stated in Threat intelligence: 11 of 36 companies

✓

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

HTTP redirects to HTTPS and the HSTS header is set.

  • HSTS max-age 31536000 seconds (365 days).
    Show the exact wording

    max-age=31536000

    Read at https://slcyber.io/

Source: https://slcyber.io/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in Threat intelligence: 25 of 37 companies

✓

Named privacy contact (DPO or privacy address)

weight 1 of 3

A data protection officer or a dedicated privacy address is named.

Source: https://www.slcyber.io/privacy-policy · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Named privacy contact in Threat intelligence: 12 of 36 companies

History

100 0 2026-10-07: 26 of 1002026-10-14: 26 of 100 2026-10-07 2026-10-14
Score over the last 2 runs we measured Searchlight Cyber in: 26 (2026-10-07), 26 (2026-10-14).

Prepare your vendor review

A source is a starting point. Check the product, plan, legal entity and date before treating it as evidence for your purchase. These questions do not change the transparency score.

Searchlight Cyber

3 found · 9 not found · 0 not measured across 12 public checks.

12 of 12 criteria have a measured result from the last 30 days. Oldest dated result: 2026-10-14.

Investigate 9 open evidence questions
  1. Data processing agreement

    Please share the current data processing agreement for the product and plan we are considering, including its annexes and signing process.

    Inspect this check
  2. Subprocessor list

    Which subprocessors apply to our product, what does each process, and in which countries? Please share the current list.

    Inspect this check
  3. Status page with history

    Where can we review incident history for the service we will use, and how do we subscribe to incident updates?

    Inspect this check
  4. Public pricing

    Please confirm the total cost for our seats and usage, including minimum commitments, add-ons, overages and renewal terms.

    Inspect this check
  5. Certifications named

    Please share the current certificate or audit report and its scope, covered legal entity, products and validity period.

    Inspect this check
  6. Uptime SLA with a figure

    Which availability commitment applies to our plan? Please include the measurement window, exclusions and credit claim process.

    Inspect this check
  7. No third-party tracking before consent

    Which third-party requests occur before a visitor makes a choice, and for what purpose? Please distinguish the public website from the product.

    Inspect this check
  8. security.txt (RFC 9116)

    Where should we report a vulnerability, and what acknowledgement and follow-up process should we expect?

    Inspect this check
  9. Notice before subprocessors change

    How will you notify us before a subprocessor changes, with how much notice, and what response options apply to our contract?

    Inspect this check

Compare

A shortlist holds up to six vendors across categories and lives entirely in the address of its page: share the link, bookmark it, put it in a ticket. Nothing is stored, so we do not know it exists.