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.
A stated percentage breakdown is materially stronger evidence than a vague 'most controls are automated' claim with no numbers.
A concrete, customer-referenced detection-time figure is far stronger evidence than a qualitative 'fast' or 'real-time' claim.
Look for an explicit tuning/suppression mechanism; a raw, untuned alert firehose is a real operational burden that erodes trust in the tool over time.
Auto-generated, timestamped evidence sourced directly from live monitoring is materially stronger than monitoring and audit-evidence collection being two disconnected processes.
Look for a stated, repeatable framework-update process; a vendor with no answer likely forces a costly re-mapping project on every framework revision.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Configurable, per-unit thresholds are stronger for real multi-entity organizations than a single fixed global logic that can't reflect differing risk appetites.
Event-stream or agent-based integration generally yields materially lower detection latency than periodic polling; the vendor should be able to state which controls use which method and why.
A live, self-reporting coverage-gap view (monitoring the monitoring itself) is a real maturity signal — probe whether it's genuinely current or a stale one-time export.
Look for transparent, predictable scaling economics; a vendor unable to project cost at meaningfully higher scale creates real budget risk for a growing compliance program.
A control failure that signals active compromise (e.g., MFA suddenly disabled organization-wide) deserves IR-severity escalation, not the same treatment as routine drift — ask for a specific severity-based escalation path.
Real underwriter acceptance is a concrete, checkable claim — press for a specific customer example rather than accepting a generic 'insurance-ready' marketing statement.
A board-appropriate trend summary is a distinct deliverable from an operational coverage-gap dashboard built for practitioners — ask to see an actual sample board-level output.
A complete control-failure inventory is a meaningful target in its own right — role-based access control over the platform's own findings is an often-overlooked consideration.
This is a real, common buyer question given the category overlap — a vendor should give an honest, specific answer about the boundary and complementarity rather than implying CCM is always a necessary separate purchase.
Ask for an honest per-environment coverage breakdown; uneven monitoring depth across environments is a common real gap that should be disclosed rather than obscured.
Automated remediation for well-understood, low-risk drift classes is materially stronger than alert-only detection requiring manual intervention for every single finding, especially at scale.