AnonymousSign in
Start from a neutral baseline and add what matters to you. Criteria are labeled by source — the platform baseline is architecture-neutral; buyer-contributed criteria are shown separately.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
Strong answers clearly distinguish runtime detection from static posture checking; a vendor that can't articulate this difference may be relabeling a CSPM product as CADR.
Look for concrete, customer-referenced timing figures for a realistic multi-stage attack chain, not synthetic lab benchmarks against a single technique.
Cross-layer correlation into one incident story is the core value proposition of CADR over point tools; disconnected per-layer alerts push correlation work back onto the analyst.
Look for a graduated response model (some actions automatic under high confidence, others requiring approval) rather than an all-or-nothing automation stance.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Strong answers are candid about coverage gaps between cloud providers rather than claiming uniform parity; probe for a per-provider feature comparison.
A concrete alert-volume-reduction figure from a real deployment is meaningful; vague claims of 'AI-powered noise reduction' without a number are not.
Agentless deployment is faster to roll out but typically has higher detection latency and less workload-level visibility than agent-based; look for the vendor stating this tradeoff honestly.
Bidirectional integration that lets analysts work the incident from their existing SIEM/SOAR is stronger than a standalone console that fragments the SOC workflow.
Look for transparent, predictable scaling economics; telemetry-volume-based pricing that spikes when the customer expands logging coverage (otherwise good security practice) creates a perverse cost incentive to under-log.
Native compliance-evidence generation is materially more valuable than raw alert logs requiring manual compilation work for every audit cycle.
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from a real-time alert stream — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
Cloud control-plane telemetry can reveal sensitive operational details — role-based access control over the tool's own findings is an often-overlooked consideration.
A false positive with automated response can cause real production disruption — ask for a real, customer-validated false-positive figure and explicit safety guardrails against incorrect automated actions.
This is a real, common buyer question given the functional overlap with CNAPP's own runtime/CDR capabilities — a vendor should give an honest answer about the boundary and complementarity, not imply a standalone purchase is always necessary.
Strong answers give a concrete, customer-validated timeline for a realistic existing-footprint scenario (not a small greenfield deployment) and are honest about the customer-side configuration effort required.
Kubernetes-specific attack patterns require genuinely different detection logic than generic VM/workload behavioral analysis — a vendor should give a specific answer on this depth rather than implying uniform coverage across all workload types.