9b
commented
7 years ago I'd say the primary difference between Blockade and other blocking-based extensions is in the utility of them. Blockade was largely created for users to block known threats or suspicious infrastructure that may be used by nation-state or cybercrime actors. Other extensions, like uBlock, appear more focused around ad-based blocking or 3rd-party resources.
As you point out, Blockade is more for organizations or individuals who want to control what's blocked as a deeper level. However, the barrier to entry is low and therefore, wouldn't see the solution as just for larger organizations. In fact, those most likely to benefit are smaller organizations without dedicated security staff. These smaller groups can work with professionals inside of the cybersecurity community in order to gain protection with Blocked being one of the primary vehicles.
As an example, see Security Without Borders and their Blockade node that they share with those in their addressable space.
It would be nice, if you make it easer to find out what the differences are compared other content blocking extension for web browser e.g. to uBlock Origin which also can use lists of malicious domains.
As far as I understand the differences are the lists of Blockade use MD5 hashes instead of plain text in the other lists. It is possible to run gradual updates (uBlock can only update a entire list and not more the one a hour). Blockade notifies the user about each finding, uBlock only shows a number over all blocked things independent of the type. Blockade has phoning home capability to inform the list manager about findings. And its block lists are not available in other extensions.
My feeling is the main benefit besides the special list, is for bigger organizations which are running there own server.