Choosing the right expert network has become a strategic decision. Therefore, comparing GLG vs AlphaSights vs Guidepoint can help in understanding the differences among leading networks. As decision cycles shorten and markets become more complex, firms are increasingly relying on expert networks for due diligence, market intelligence, strategic validation, and more.
However, newer players like Infoquest are changing the market by offering faster sourcing, higher relevance, and more flexible engagement models.
This guide compares GLG vs AlphaSights vs Guidepoint vs Infoquest across sourcing models, speed, cost, technology, and ideal use cases, so you can choose the network that fits your needs in 2025.
GLG vs AlphaSights vs Guidepoint vs Infoquest: How the Leading Expert Networks Compare
| Network | Founded | Core Strength | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| GLG | 1998 | Scale & institutional coverage | Large funds, compliance-heavy research |
| AlphaSights | 2008 | Speed & execution | Consulting firms, fast-moving diligence |
| Guidepoint | 2003 | Database depth | PE, hedge funds, broad sector coverage |
| Infoquest | 2023 | Custom sourcing | Niche, urgent, hard-to-source expertise |
GLG: The First Expert Network
They launched the expert network industry and remain the largest provider by scale. Its strength lies in institutional credibility, compliance infrastructure, and a massive expert pool.
Where GLG Excels
- Extensive global expert coverage
- Strong compliance and governance frameworks
- Deep adoption by institutional investors
- Structured processes for regulated environments
Limitations
- Slower turnaround
- Less flexible pricing
- Heavy reliance on existing databases
- Limited customization for niche or emerging topics
Best suited for:
Large investment firms, compliance-sensitive research, and organizations prioritizing scale over speed.
AlphaSights: Speed and Client Service at Scale
AlphaSights built its reputation on execution speed and a strong service-driven model.
Where AlphaSights Excels
- Rapid expert matching
- Strong client service teams
- High usage among top-tier consulting firms
- Seamless coordination and scheduling
Limitations
- Premium pricing
- Less flexibility for hyper-niche requests
- Largely database-driven
- Limited transparency in expert sourcing logic
Best suited for:
Consulting firms and corporate teams needing fast turnarounds on well-defined research questions.
Guidepoint: Depth of Database and Sector Breadth
Guidepoint distinguishes itself through one of the largest expert databases in the industry, spanning millions of profiles across sectors.
Where Guidepoint Excels
- Massive expert pool
- Strong coverage across industries
- Well-established investor user base
- Multiple engagement formats (calls, surveys, panels)
Limitations
- Database-first approach can reduce relevance
- Slower sourcing for niche profiles
- Less effective for emerging markets or niche geographies
Best suited for:
Funds and research teams requiring broad expert coverage.
Infoquest: The New Generation of Expert Networks
Infoquest represents a newer category of expert networks built around custom sourcing and AI-assisted workflows, rather than static databases.
Instead of pulling from a fixed pool, Infoquest actively sources experts per client brief, using AI to identify experience patterns, rank relevance, and accelerate discovery, before human verification.
Where Infoquest Excels
- AI-assisted expert matching aligned to the client brief
- Custom sourcing for niche, regional, or hard-to-find experts
- Faster turnaround (first shortlist often within hours)
- Strong coverage in GCC, MENA, and emerging markets
- Flexible pricing and engagement structures
- Clean, structured expert presentations
Limitations
- Smaller visible database compared to legacy giants
- Less suitable for purely standardized, high-volume research
Best suited for:
Consulting firms, PE funds, and corporates needing precision, speed, and relevance, especially in niche or emerging markets.
Key Comparison Dimensions That Matter in 2025
1. Speed to Insight
- AlphaSights & Infoquest lead on speed
- GLG & Guidepoint slower due to legacy systems
2. Expert Relevance
- Infoquest: highest precision through custom sourcing
- Guidepoint: broad but less targeted
- GLG: reliable but slower to adapt
3. Technology & AI Usage
- Infoquest: AI-native workflows (matching, vetting, presentations)
- AlphaSights & Guidepoint: partial AI adoption
- GLG: legacy systems with incremental AI layers
4. Compliance & Risk
- GLG strongest for regulated environments
- Others rely on standard compliance frameworks
5. Pricing Flexibility
- Infoquest most flexible
- AlphaSights & GLG premium pricing models
- Guidepoint mid-to-high range
Which Expert Network Should You Choose?
GLG if:
- You operate in a highly regulated environment
- Compliance and scale matter more than speed
AlphaSights if:
- You need fast execution for well-defined projects
- You value service coordination over customization
Guidepoint if:
- You need access to a massive expert database
- Breadth matters more than niche accuracy
Infoquest if:
- You need hard-to-source or niche expertise
- Speed and relevance are critical
- You operate in emerging or under-covered markets
- You want AI-assisted sourcing with human validation
Conclusion: There Is No Single “Best” Expert Network
There is no universally “best” expert network, only the right one for your use case.
GLG, AlphaSights, and Guidepoint remain strong choices for traditional research needs. However, Infoquest reflects where the industry is heading: AI-assisted sourcing, custom expert discovery, and faster delivery of high-relevance insights.
For organizations operating in fast-moving, complex markets, the advantage increasingly lies with networks that combine technology, human judgment, and flexibility.
