Castle vs HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard)
Castle vs HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard), compared side by side on 20 data points: what each one does, how big it is, what it has raised, the tech running each site, and what users report. We score both out of 100 on traction, team and visibility: Castle is on 60/100 and HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard) on 64/100.
Where each one leads
Castle
- headcount growth: +24.2% against -1.9%
HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard)
- our overall score: 64/100 against 60/100
- domain rating: 78/100 against 66/100
- headcount: 519 against 52
- funding raised: $753M against $9.2M
- LinkedIn following: 40,021 against 18,824
At a glance
| Measure | Castle | HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard) |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Developer-grade infrastructure to stop bots, abuse, and fraud by transforming user behavior into real-time signals. | Verifies digital interactions to distinguish humans from bots and AI, protecting against fraud and abuse. |
| Category | Cybersecurity, Threat Detection, Authentication, API Platform | Cybersecurity, Threat Detection, AdTech, Fraud Detection |
| Sells toBusiness model | B2B | B2B |
| Offering | Software | Platform |
| Founded | 2015 | 2012 |
| Headquarters | San Francisco, United States | New York, United States |
| Status | Active | Active |
Size, funding and growth
| Measure | Castle | HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard) |
|---|---|---|
| Employees | 52 | 519 |
| Headcount growthLast 12 months | +24.2% | -1.9% |
| Total funding | $9.2M | $753M |
| Latest round | Series A | Growth Funding |
| LinkedIn followers | 18,824 | 40,021 |
StartupHub scores
Our own 0-100 ratings. They measure company strength and site quality, not which product suits you.
| Measure | Castle | HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard) |
|---|---|---|
| StartupHub scoreOur 0-100 rating | 60/100 | 64/100 |
| Traction | 52/100 | 60/100 |
| Team | 60/100 | 70/100 |
| Community | 15/100 | Not published |
| Search visibility | 36/100 | 42/100 |
| Quality | 68/100 | 68/100 |
| Agent readinessHow well an AI agent can read and act on the site | D (49/100) | D (45/100) |
| Domain ratingLink authority, 0-100 | 66/100 | 78/100 |
Technology
Detected on each public site, so it reflects the marketing stack as well as the product.
| Measure | Castle | HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard) |
|---|---|---|
| Hosting | Netlify | Not detected |
| CDN | Netlify | Cloudflare |
| CMS | Lovable | Not detected |
| Frameworks | Astro, Tailwind CSS | Not detected |
| Analytics | Google Analytics 4, Google Tag Manager, PostHog | Not detected |
Castle vs HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard): common questions
Which is better, Castle or HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard)?
On our 0-100 score HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard) rates higher (64/100 against 60/100). The score weights traction, team, visibility and profile completeness, so it reflects company strength rather than which product suits you. We compare the two on 20 data points above: read the rows that match what you are buying for.
How do Castle and HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard) compare on the numbers?
Castle leads on headcount growth (+24.2% against -1.9%). HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard) leads on our overall score (64/100 against 60/100), domain rating (78/100 against 66/100), headcount (519 against 52), funding raised ($753M against $9.2M), LinkedIn following (40,021 against 18,824).
Read the full Castle review and pricing or the HUMAN Security (HUMAN Sightline Cyberfraud Defense, MediaGuard) review and pricing. You can also browse other Castle alternatives we track.