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.
Each discovery method has real, different blind spots; ask the vendor to be explicit about what each method misses rather than implying comprehensive visibility from one technique alone.
Without risk scoring, shadow-IT discovery just produces an overwhelming list with no prioritization; ask for the specific risk factors considered and a customer-referenced example of the scoring correctly triaging real findings.
A large initial discovery dump with no triage assistance creates its own alert-fatigue problem; ask specifically how the platform helps a team work through a big first-pass discovery efficiently, not just that discovery happened.
Discovery without an enforcement path (either native or via integration with an existing CASB/SWG) leaves the actual risk unaddressed; ask specifically how a finding becomes an enforced block, not just a report entry.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
A constructive sanctioning path (not just block-or-ignore) reduces the incentive for employees to hide their tool usage from IT/security, which is a healthier long-term posture than pure enforcement.
Apps accessed via personal accounts (bypassing SSO) are often the highest-risk shadow IT and hardest to detect via IdP logs alone; ask specifically how non-SSO usage is identified, since this is a common real coverage gap.
Same tension as other discovery-driven categories: successful shadow-IT discovery inherently increases the counted app population — ask explicitly how pricing handles a large post-onboarding jump in discovered apps.
Strong answers describe a fast, specific forensic capability for a confirmed compromise, not just preventive discovery.
Native compliance-evidence generation is materially more valuable than raw discovery logs requiring manual compilation for every audit cycle.
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from a real-time discovery dashboard — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
This is a real, common buyer question given the functional overlap with SSPM and CASB's own discovery capabilities — a vendor should give an honest answer about the boundary and complementarity.
Discovered app-usage data is sensitive from both a security and employee-privacy perspective — role-based access control over this specific data is an often-overlooked consideration.
Genuine multi-entity isolation is materially more useful for a diversified organization than one shared view forcing a one-size-fits-all shadow-IT posture.
A genuinely global organization needs real risk data on regionally-popular apps, not just well-known Western SaaS tools — ask for an honest answer on international app-database breadth.