Todyl vs Huntress: Which MDR Platform Fits Your MSP Stack

Todyl vs Huntress at a glance

The two products don't actually compete for the same line item. Todyl is a consolidation platform: one agent that bundles SASE, SIEM, endpoint security, MXDR, and GRC, sold only through MSP partners. Huntress is a modular MDR add-on: you buy Managed EDR, ITDR, SIEM, or security awareness training separately, each priced and billed on its own. That difference drives almost everything else in this comparison.

What Todyl actually sells: a five-module consolidation platform

Todyl was founded in 2015 by John Nellen and went to market with MSP partners in 2019. Its V1 platform (SASE and SIEM) launched in 2020; the 2022 V2 release added Endpoint Security and MXDR, rounding the platform out to five modules delivered through a single agent: SASE, SIEM, EDR/NGAV, MXDR, and GRC. Todyl's own platform page frames this as prevention, detection, response, and compliance in one place, and the company raised a $50 million Series B in 2024 to keep building it out.

The part worth understanding before you evaluate pricing: Todyl is sold exclusively through the channel. There's no self-serve checkout and no public price list — a partner scopes the deal against which modules you need and how many endpoints, identities, and sites are involved. That's consistent with the platform's pitch: it's meant to replace a stack of separate SASE, SIEM, EDR, and GRC vendors, not to compete line-for-line against a single-purpose product.

The practical trade-off is vendor lock-in for operational simplicity. If you run Todyl's SASE module, your network security posture is now tied to Todyl's Secure Global Network. That's fine if you wanted to consolidate anyway — it's a real cost if you later want to swap out just the EDR piece.

What Huntress actually sells: modular MDR you add to an existing stack

Huntress was founded in 2015 by former NSA cyber operators and has grown mainly on MSP word-of-mouth and a G2 review base north of 1,200 ratings. Unlike Todyl, Huntress doesn't try to be your whole security stack — it's four separately priced products you can mix and match: Managed EDR, Managed ITDR (identity threat detection, covering Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace), Managed SIEM, and Managed Security Awareness Training.

Pricing is public. As of Huntress's own pricing page, Managed EDR lists at $8.99 per endpoint per month with no tiers or required add-ons — you get the agent, the 24/7 SOC, and remediation in that one line item. ITDR runs $4.80 per licensed identity, SIEM around $4.00 per data source, and security awareness training $2.08 per learner. Community-reported street pricing for EDR alone runs closer to $2.50–$3.50 per endpoint once MSP volume discounts apply, but the list prices are a real anchor you can budget against before ever talking to sales — something Todyl doesn't offer.

The trade-off runs the other way from Todyl's: you get transparent, easy-to-scope pricing and a fast deployment (Huntress is commonly cited at roughly 30 minutes to stand up EDR), but you're still running a separate firewall, SASE, or network security vendor. Huntress doesn't touch that layer at all.

Todyl vs Huntress pricing compared

This is the question most MSPs actually ask, and it's also where the comparison gets asymmetric — one vendor publishes list prices, the other doesn't.

The honest way to compare cost isn't per-endpoint against per-endpoint — it's total cost to cover the same attack surface. If a client only needs endpoint and identity coverage, stacking Huntress EDR and ITDR is usually cheaper and easier to forecast than a Todyl quote. If the client also needs SASE and GRC, pricing those separately (a firewall vendor, a compliance tool, and Huntress) can end up costing more than Todyl's bundled scope-based price — you just won't know until you get the quote, because Todyl doesn't publish one.

Which one fits your MSP stack

• You're consolidating tools, not adding one. If you're currently juggling a separate firewall/SASE vendor, a SIEM, an EDR agent, and a spreadsheet for compliance evidence, Todyl's pitch to replace all of it with one agent and one bill is the actual value proposition — evaluate it against what you're paying across those separate vendors today, not against Huntress alone.
• You already have a firewall/SASE vendor you're happy with. Adding Todyl means either running its SASE module redundantly or migrating off your current network vendor. Huntress slots in cleanly as a pure MDR layer on top of whatever you already run.
• You need to budget before you talk to a vendor. Huntress's published per-unit pricing lets you build a real estimate from endpoint and identity counts alone. Todyl requires a partner conversation to get a number.
• Compliance reporting is a recurring client ask. Todyl's GRC module is built into the platform; with Huntress you'd still need a separate GRC tool or manual process.
• You want the most-reviewed, easiest-to-explain MDR line item. Huntress has the larger public review base and a simpler one-line pitch to clients: "24/7 human SOC watching your endpoints." Todyl's five-module pitch takes longer to explain in a sales conversation.

Can you run Todyl and Huntress together?

Yes, and some MSPs do — it's not an either/or in every environment. A common pattern reported by partners evaluating Todyl alternatives is keeping Todyl for SASE and GRC while layering Huntress on top for deeper endpoint and identity MDR, since Todyl's MXDR is newer than Huntress's endpoint detection and some teams want the more established SOC track record there. The cost of that combination is real, though: two agents, two consoles, and two vendors to manage per client instead of one. It's worth doing deliberately, for a specific coverage gap, rather than defaulting to both because neither pitch fully convinced you.

What actually changes if you switch

Moving between them isn't just a pricing decision — it changes what your team has to operate day to day.

• Agent swap across every endpoint. Both platforms use their own lightweight agent; migrating means a deployment cycle across every managed device, not a config change.
• SOC runbooks reset. Alert triage, escalation paths, and client-facing incident reports are built around whichever SOC you're using. Expect a retraining period for your team either direction.
• Network dependency, one direction only. Moving onto Todyl's SASE module means your client's network path now runs through Todyl's Secure Global Network — that's a real architectural change, not just a tool swap. Moving off Todyl means re-architecting that layer with a separate vendor.
• Reporting format changes for clients. If you've built QBR templates or compliance evidence around one platform's reporting, budget time to rebuild them around the other's.

Either way, most of that reporting and alert-triage rebuild work is repetitive enough to automate rather than redo by hand each time you touch a client's stack. If that's the part slowing your team down, Netalith's AI automation and workflow work is built around exactly that kind of repetitive SOC and reporting pipeline, independent of which MDR platform sits underneath it.

Bottom line

Neither product wins outright — they're not really priced against the same problem. Todyl is the right question to ask when you're tired of stitching together separate SASE, SIEM, EDR, and GRC vendors and want one agent and one bill; Huntress is the right question when you already have the rest of your stack sorted and want a validated, transparently priced MDR layer on top of it. Get a scoped Todyl quote and a Huntress estimate against the same endpoint and identity counts before deciding — the asymmetry in how each vendor prices is the biggest variable in this whole comparison.

If you're reassessing more of your MSP's technology stack while you're at it, Netalith offers a free consultation to talk through where custom tooling or automation could remove work from your team.