Iceberg CyberA score-led campaign and an evidence-led workflow
Iceberg Cyber's current public site presents Cyber Score as a lead magnet inside a broader outbound engine for MSPs. The package includes a Dream 200 list, CRM integrations, scripts, LinkedIn automation, follow-up, coaching, and higher-touch service options. Its learning center shows Cyber Score in direct mail, event, and outbound workflows.
SCOUTz starts from the same practical truth: a cold account needs a real reason to talk. It avoids compressing every observation into one conclusion. Each supported finding keeps its source, time, coverage, and limit. The MSP can decide whether the result justifies a question, a deeper review, a recommendation, or no action.
The distinction matters after the click. A score is fast to understand. A body of evidence is easier to examine when a buyer or engineer asks what produced the conclusion.
Who Iceberg Cyber is right for
Iceberg Cyber is a practical fit for an MSP that wants a packaged outbound routine, not only a piece of software. Its current offer combines lead-list work, campaign tools, scripts, coaching, and CRM integration around the Cyber Score. A small team that struggles to create daily outreach habits may value that operating support as much as the score itself.
The vendor also publishes training for using Cyber Score in direct mail, postcards, cold calls, LinkedIn, and events. That makes the system easy to place inside a conventional top-of-funnel motion. Buyers should evaluate the score and the surrounding services together because the public package is designed as one outbound engine.
If the immediate need is coaching, list creation, campaign execution, or a managed appointment motion, those are capabilities SCOUTz does not claim to replace.
Who SCOUTz is right for
SCOUTz fits an MSP that wants the first technical statement to remain defensible in the second conversation. A domain observation is presented as a domain observation. A historical breach association is not described as current compromise. An unknown is not converted into a clean result or a stronger warning.
The MSP can then earn a deeper, customer-approved Microsoft 365 review. That layer can evaluate supported identity, application-consent, security-configuration, and AI-readiness evidence while excluding mail, files, chats, and prompts. The point is more depth after permission without abandoning the original source discipline.
SCOUTz also follows the work. Findings can become discovery questions, recommendations, owned tasks, client-safe reports, and supported rescan comparisons. That longer evidence life is useful when the MSP wants the opening conversation and the delivery record to agree.
What the access model changes
Both products begin with public information. Iceberg Cyber's public materials emphasize the Cyber Score as a fast conversation starter inside outbound campaigns. SCOUTz emphasizes the underlying findings and the boundary of each source. The score may still appear on a public SCOUTz tool, but the record beneath it shows what was checked and why the result cannot stand in for an internal review.
A breach match is the clearest example. It can establish that an identifier appeared in historical exposure data. It cannot, by itself, establish that the same secret is still used, that an account is currently accessible, or that the organization is compromised. SCOUTz keeps those stronger claims separate until a source can support them.
That discipline is not an argument against urgency. It is a way to make urgency specific. The seller can say exactly what was observed, exactly what should be checked next, and exactly what the public source cannot answer.
Where each sits in the funnel
Iceberg Cyber is built for repeated outbound activity. The public offer connects a score to a target list, CRM, scripts, follow-up, LinkedIn, coaching, and optional managed execution. It is therefore strongest where the MSP needs a repeatable system for opening many conversations.
SCOUTz can start just as early, but it is designed to remain useful after the first response. The public finding prepares the meeting. The meeting creates sharper questions. Consent can unlock a deeper cloud review. The same evidence can inform the MSP's work plan and later verification.
An MSP choosing between them should decide whether the main constraint is outbound consistency or evidence continuity. If both matter, test whether the two systems produce duplicate noise or a clean handoff.
Pricing and buying terms
Iceberg Cyber publishes pricing for its current Outbound Engine. As reviewed on September 12, 2026, the do-it-yourself offer is shown at $299 per month plus a $2,500 launch fee, the done-with-you offer is shown at $5,490 per year, and the done-for-you offer is shown at $8,998 per month. Buyers should confirm the current scope, term, and availability on Iceberg Cyber's own page.
SCOUTz lists at $279 per month, with 30 days at $0 during Open Beta and clear conversion terms. An agreed beta rate is protected for three years. Annual billing receives a 10 percent discount, and that discount stacks with the agreed beta rate.
The packages are not equivalent. Iceberg Cyber pricing includes varying amounts of outbound service and coaching. SCOUTz pricing centers access to the evidence workflow. Compare the actual operating job, not only the monthly line.
Can the products run together?
They can, although the overlap at the top of the funnel is greater than it is in several other SCOUTz comparisons. An MSP could use Iceberg Cyber for list building, coaching, and campaign execution while using SCOUTz for the account-specific evidence, customer-approved Microsoft 365 review, and verification record.
The team should choose one claim standard. If one output presents a single urgent score and the other presents bounded findings, the rep needs a clear rule for what may be repeated in a meeting. The safest rule is to lead with the supported observation and reserve every stronger conclusion for the source that can establish it.
A short pilot should test reply quality, meeting quality, technical follow-up, and how often the report remains useful after the initial outreach.