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.
Automatic evidence collection triggered on detection is materially stronger than manual initiation, since cloud logs often have short retention/rotation windows that can destroy evidence before a human gets to it.
Ask specifically which response actions are automatable versus which always require human approval, and for a real incident example where automated response measurably reduced dwell time.
Automated cross-service, cross-account timeline correlation is the core value proposition of this category over manually querying each cloud service's logs separately during a live incident.
Strong answers are candid about coverage gaps between cloud providers; a customer with a genuinely multi-cloud environment needs to know where the real depth is, not just that all three are nominally 'supported.'
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Ephemeral resource evidence capture is a genuinely hard, category-defining problem; ask specifically how the platform handles investigation of a resource that's already gone, since this is common in auto-scaling cloud environments.
Automatic case creation with full context in the existing SOC tooling avoids duplicate work and lost context; a standalone tool requiring manual re-entry into the primary incident-tracking system is a real workflow friction point.
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 investigation logs requiring manual compilation for every audit cycle.
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from individual investigation reports — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
Investigation evidence can have real legal consequences and reveal sensitive operational details — role-based access control over this specific asset is an often-overlooked consideration.
A false positive with automated containment 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 CDR and CNAPP's own response capabilities — a vendor should give an honest answer about the boundary and complementarity.
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.
Investigation records may have ongoing legal/compliance retention value — a vendor with no clear data-portability answer creates real vendor lock-in risk for historically significant forensic records.