Hilt vs Cyberhaven: How the Two Compare (2026)

Hilt and Cyberhaven solve different parts of the same problem. Cyberhaven pioneered Data Detection and Response with data lineage: tracing how files move and transform across endpoints and SaaS. Hilt is a data movement governance platform that watches data movement at the kernel, metadata only by default, off the path, and surfaces when a pattern is abnormal for the identity behind it. Hilt is additive to Cyberhaven, not a rip and replace.

This guide compares the two across architecture, detection, deployment, and coverage, so security teams can see where each one fits. For a broader view of the category, see our guide on data exfiltration prevention.

Why Security Teams Compare Hilt and Cyberhaven

Cyberhaven pioneered the Data Detection and Response (DDR) category with its data lineage approach, tracking how files move, transform, and spread across an organization. It is a genuine step beyond legacy DLP tools like Microsoft Purview, Broadcom Symantec, and Forcepoint that rely on content-pattern matching alone. Cyberhaven has raised $236 million in funding, reached a $1 billion valuation in 2025, and counts Motorola, Cooley LLP, and Axos Bank among its customers.

Teams evaluating Cyberhaven also weigh some tradeoffs. G2 and Gartner Peer Insights reviews cite policy configuration complexity requiring SQL-like query knowledge, a steep admin console learning curve, and high initial false positive rates that demand tuning. Architecturally, Cyberhaven watches at the application layer, which is the right vantage for lineage. A different vantage, at the kernel, is where Hilt adds coverage: data moved by a custom binary, a script that sidesteps standard file APIs, or an unsanctioned app, plus native network-level telemetry and cross-domain correlation.

Hilt vs. Cyberhaven: At a Glance

For a full feature-by-feature breakdown, see the complete comparison.

Vantage: At the Kernel vs. The Application Layer

This is the main architectural difference between Hilt and Cyberhaven, and both vantages are legitimate. Cyberhaven was explicitly designed to run at the application layer on Windows and macOS, avoiding kernel extensions to prevent crashes. That is a reasonable tradeoff for stability, and it is where lineage lives.

Application-layer telemetry observes what applications report through APIs. A vantage at the kernel watches data movement itself, before encryption or obfuscation, metadata only by default. If sensitive bytes move through the OS, Hilt's Cloud Feed records the metadata of the move, whichever application or script initiated it.

In practice, that means Hilt adds visibility into movement that application-layer tooling is not built to see: custom scripts that sidestep application APIs, renamed binaries, data staged through microservices, and transfers over non-standard protocols. IBM's 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report found that organizations take an average of 241 days to detect breaches, and much of that gap is movement that no layer is watching directly.

Cross-Domain Visibility

Data movement rarely stays within a single domain. A typical chain spans cloud workloads (a sensitive read), endpoints (staging locally), and network boundaries (an external transfer). Tools that watch one domain see one step.

Cyberhaven covers endpoints and SaaS via API connectors for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, and Snowflake. Native network monitoring is a different layer, so wire-level data movement, DNS tunneling, and cross-region transfers tend to sit outside its view.

Hilt watches all three domains through unified cloud, endpoint, and network feeds, each at the kernel, correlated in real time through a single behavioral detection engine. That is how Hilt surfaces a multi-step pattern: a service account reads from a production database (cloud), stages it on a workstation (endpoint), and uploads to an unapproved S3 bucket (network).

Detection and Response

Cyberhaven's detection relies on data lineage, tracing the genealogy of a file through every transformation step. That is powerful for post-incident forensics and for understanding how data flows. Lineage-based detection generates alerts for human investigation.

The SANS Institute reports that 63% of SOC alerts are non-actionable and 67% of analysts say false positives significantly impact their work. The Sophos Active Adversary Report found exfiltration often completes within 3 days of compromise, before most alert-based workflows respond.

Hilt takes a different approach: three-tier behavioral detection (deterministic rules, behavioral ML, and model inference) that surfaces the anomalous pattern of movement and resolves it to a real identity and the job behind it. Where you choose to act, Hilt isolates the host at the network (quarantine) from the control plane. It never sits inline, and it does not block, drop, or alter traffic. In a quant fund running Hilt as a design partner, a single finding surfaced a service account reading far outside its baseline, a deviation the full stack above it had passed.

Deployment and Time-to-Value

Cyberhaven requires three components for full deployment: an endpoint agent, a browser extension for all major browsers, and cloud API connectors for SaaS platforms. G2 reviewers describe policy configuration as requiring SQL-like query knowledge, with a steep learning curve. Full deployment with policy tuning takes days to weeks.

Hilt deploys with a single command: no browser extensions, no API connectors, no code changes. The collector attaches at the kernel and begins recording movement metadata immediately, off the path. First events arrive in seconds. Behavioral baselines build over the deployment, with deterministic detection active from day one. Overhead is negligible: around 0.1% of one core and 4 to 8 MB, single-tenant in your own cloud.

Where Cyberhaven Is the Stronger Choice

A fair comparison names where Cyberhaven is the better fit. Its data lineage is genuinely innovative, tracking a file through dozens of transformation steps including renames, compression, copy-paste, and format conversions. No other DDR or DLP tool matches it for understanding how data propagates across an organization. Hilt does not replace that.

Cyberhaven also offers user coaching, real-time prompts that guide employees away from risky behavior. Cooley LLP reported an 80% reduction in risky behavior after deploying Cyberhaven's coaching features. For organizations prioritizing user education, this is valuable, and its forensic investigation with screen recordings provides evidence a movement layer does not capture.

If your primary need is understanding data flows and coaching users in a Windows/macOS, SaaS-heavy environment, Cyberhaven is a strong fit. If you also need a layer that watches data movement at the kernel across cloud workloads and network boundaries, Hilt runs alongside it.

Where Hilt Adds a Layer

Hilt is the right addition for security teams that want, on top of their existing stack:

• A vantage at the kernel. Data movement watched below the application layer, surfacing the pattern that custom scripts, renamed binaries, and non-standard protocols form
• Cross-domain coverage. Unified metadata across cloud workloads, endpoints, and network boundaries, correlated through a single detection engine
• Detect, then isolate. The anomalous pattern resolved to a real identity, with host-level network isolation (quarantine) where you choose to act, never inline
• Cloud-native deployment. Coverage for Kubernetes pods, Docker containers, VMs, and GPU clusters in your own cloud
• Fast deployment. One command, first events in seconds, no browser extensions or SQL-like policy configuration
• Latency-sensitive environments. Financial services, trading desks, and real-time systems where off-the-path overhead matters

Organizations in financial services, hedge funds, and regulated industries running mixed cloud/endpoint/network environments see the most value from adding this layer. Compliance requirements under SOC 2 Type II, GDPR Article 32, PCI DSS, ISO 27001, and SEC 17a-4 are supported through Hilt's immutable audit trail and reporting.

Book a demo with Hilt to see data movement at the kernel, resolved to a real identity, in your environment. One-command deployment, first events in seconds.

FAQ

Is Hilt a Cyberhaven replacement? Not a rip and replace. Cyberhaven's lineage and Hilt's kernel-level movement layer cover different parts of the problem and can run together. Hilt adds a vantage at the kernel across cloud, endpoint, and network, with host-level network isolation (quarantine) where you choose to act.

How is Hilt different from Cyberhaven? Hilt watches data movement at the kernel, metadata only by default, off the path. Cyberhaven watches at the application layer, relying on data lineage and content classification. Hilt detects the anomalous pattern and can isolate the host at the network; Cyberhaven generates alerts for manual investigation. Hilt covers cloud, endpoint, and network; Cyberhaven covers endpoint and SaaS.

Is Cyberhaven a good DLP tool? Cyberhaven is a strong evolution beyond traditional DLP. Its data lineage tracks files through transformations that content-inspection DLP (Microsoft Purview, Broadcom Symantec) cannot follow. Native network monitoring and cloud-workload telemetry at the kernel are a different layer, which is where Hilt fits.

How long does Hilt take to deploy? Hilt deploys with a single command and delivers first events in seconds: no browser extensions, API connectors, or policy configuration required. Behavioral baselines build over the deployment. Organizations can run Hilt alongside Cyberhaven.

Does Hilt work with existing security tools? Yes. Hilt integrates with your existing SIEM (Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel), EDR (CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne), and SOAR platforms. It is additive, adding the behavioral movement and containment layer your stack does not have. See our FAQ for integration details.