Choose Hypernative for managed real-time monitoring and automated response across protocol and treasury risks, Hexagate for security-led detection and prevention workflows, and Forta for an open decentralized detection network with composable community and premium feeds.
How to use this comparison
This guide is written for a buyer selecting real-time protocol monitoring, threat detection and incident-response automation. It compares public product information, operating models and procurement implications. It is not a ranking, certification or claim that one provider is universally better. Capabilities, integrations, commercial terms and geographic availability change, so the final decision should be based on a current proposal, technical validation and legal review.
The useful question is not “which brand is biggest?” It is “which operating model fits the system we are actually accountable for?” Start by documenting users, assets, jurisdictions, transaction volume, trust assumptions, internal owners, recovery requirements and the consequences of failure. A provider that looks feature-rich in a demo can still be a poor fit if it creates an unclear custody position, weak exit path or operational process the team cannot staff.
Decision criteria
- Threat coverage.
- Detection model.
- Mempool and onchain visibility.
- Custom rules.
- Alert delivery.
- Automated response.
- Integration with multisig and operations.
- Evidence and incident workflow.
Side-by-side comparison
| Decision factor | Hypernative | Hexagate | Forta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary model | Managed monitoring, simulation and response platform | Real-time detection and prevention platform | Decentralized detection-bot and scan-node network |
| Detection approach | Onchain, offchain and transaction-risk signals | Behavioral and exploit-focused security detection | Independent bots produce alerts from transactions and blocks |
| Customization | Policies, monitors and operational response configuration | Protocol-specific detection and prevention setup | Develop or subscribe to public and premium detection feeds |
| Response | Automated response and transaction-policy workflows | Prevention and response-oriented workflows | Alerts integrate into external response systems |
| Good fit | Protocols and treasuries wanting a managed security operations layer | Teams focused on exploit prevention with a security vendor | Teams wanting open, composable detection intelligence |
| Main diligence point | False positives, response authority and integration ownership | Coverage evidence, chain support and response boundaries | Feed quality, bot maintenance, alert correlation and internal response |
The table is a starting point. “Supported” can mean generally available, available through a partner, limited to selected chains or entities, or dependent on a separate contract. Turn every important cell into a written acceptance criterion.
Vendor profiles
Hypernative
Hypernative focuses on real-time monitoring and response for Web3 systems. Its public product materials describe monitoring across onchain, offchain and mempool signals, transaction simulation and policies, and automated response for protocols and treasuries.
Good fit: High-value protocols that need an operational security layer connected to governance, treasury and incident procedures.
Potential limitation: Automation must be constrained. A false positive that pauses a market or blocks treasury activity can itself create material operational risk.
Hexagate
Hexagate positions around real-time Web3 threat detection, prevention and security operations. It is relevant where the team wants exploit intelligence translated into alerts and defensive actions rather than building a monitoring stack from raw chain data.
Good fit: Protocols wanting a security-vendor relationship around detection, monitoring and prevention workflows.
Potential limitation: Ask for chain-specific coverage, examples relevant to the architecture, alert-quality data and precise boundaries of any automated response.
Forta
Forta is a decentralized monitoring network. Detection bots analyze transactions and blocks, scan nodes execute the bots, and subscribers consume alerts through feeds and APIs. Its Attack Detector correlates alerts across stages of an attack.
Good fit: Teams wanting open and composable detection feeds, custom bot development or security intelligence that can be integrated into an internal stack.
Potential limitation: An open detection network still needs ownership. Someone must select feeds, tune alerts, monitor bot health, correlate signals and execute incident playbooks.
Best fit by buyer scenario
| Buyer scenario | Likely starting point | Reason to investigate |
|---|---|---|
| Lending protocol with large TVL | Hypernative or Hexagate | Prioritize exploit detection, oracle and governance monitoring, pause design and tested 24/7 escalation. |
| Security team building custom detections | Forta | Bots and feed composition provide flexibility when the team can operate the detection engineering lifecycle. |
| Tokenized treasury | Hypernative | Transaction policies and managed monitoring can complement custody approval controls. |
| Early protocol with limited security staff | Managed platform | Operational support and high-signal defaults may matter more than unlimited customization. |
| Security data product | Forta | Open alerts and APIs can become inputs, subject to licensing, quality and attribution checks. |
These are shortlisting hypotheses. A regulated entity, startup and global institution can reach different conclusions even when they begin with the same use case.
How to validate the shortlist
- Test the hardest production workflow with realistic volume, failure and recovery scenarios.
- Confirm which features are generally available, partner-delivered or dependent on a separate contract.
- Price implementation, usage, support, overages and exit work, not only the subscription.
- Verify security scope, data handling, incident response, service levels and named delivery staff.
- Require usable exports for configuration, records and logs before signing.
Use these checks as procurement prompts, then validate regulatory and contractual conclusions with qualified advisers.
Primary sources
- Hypernative platform
- Hypernative Guardian
- Hexagate
- Forta: How the network works
- Forta Attack Detector
- Forta subscriptions
FAQ
Which provider is best?
Choose Hypernative for managed real-time monitoring and automated response across protocol and treasury risks, Hexagate for security-led detection and prevention workflows, and Forta for an open decentralized detection network with composable community and premium feeds.
Can the providers be combined?
They can sometimes serve complementary layers, but buyers should remove duplicated controls and assign a single owner for each policy, record and incident action.
Is public pricing enough to estimate cost?
No. Request current enterprise pricing for implementation, usage, support, integrations, overages and exit assistance, then add internal operating cost.
What should be tested before signing?
Test the hardest production workflow, prohibited actions, dependency failure, retries, recovery, reporting and data export with realistic scale.
Does vendor use transfer regulatory responsibility?
No. The buyer should obtain advice on its own custody, data, outsourcing, settlement, consumer and compliance obligations.
How should roadmap features be scored?
Treat them as unavailable unless delivery timing and acceptance criteria are contractually committed.
What is the most important exit question?
Ask whether configuration, records, logs and identifiers can be exported in usable formats without losing operational continuity.
How current is this comparison?
It was reviewed on August 26, 2026 using the linked primary vendor materials. Verify current availability directly before procurement.
Compare web3 security vendors
Build a shortlist around your architecture, controls and operating model.