Skip to main content

all systems operational · status.vaultsecurity.example SOC 2 Type II · ISO 27001 · fictional demo attestations

VAULT SECURITY
Request a demo

[ Comparison / Choose with your eyes open ]

Should you even buy us?

Set your company profile and we re-score Vault against the two real alternatives — building it yourself and a legacy enterprise suite. The verdicts are honest: for some profiles, the right answer is not us, and this page will say so.

[ Your profile ]

Company size
Cloud footprint
Compliance needs

Best fit for this profile: Vault Security at 77% weighted fit.

Scored comparison of the three approaches

Vault Security

This platform — agentless, cloud-first, evidence-led

77% weighted fit

  • Time to first real finding 5/5
  • Multi-cloud coverage depth 5/5
  • Low operating burden 4/5
  • 3-year cost profile 3/5
  • Continuous audit evidence 5/5
  • On-prem & data-center coverage 2/5
  • Customization & control 3/5

Verdict

A solid fit. Fast time-to-value and continuous evidence are the honest strengths; deep on-prem coverage and unlimited customization are the honest gaps.

Build it yourself

Open source + cloud-native tools + in-house glue

49% weighted fit

  • Time to first real finding 2/5
  • Multi-cloud coverage depth 2/5
  • Low operating burden 0/5
  • 3-year cost profile 3/5
  • Continuous audit evidence 2/5
  • On-prem & data-center coverage 3/5
  • Customization & control 5/5

Verdict

Possible, but multi-cloud DIY means normalizing three providers' findings yourself — the glue code becomes an unfunded internal product with one maintainer.

Legacy enterprise suite

On-prem-rooted platform, appliance & per-seat licensing

49% weighted fit

  • Time to first real finding 2/5
  • Multi-cloud coverage depth 1/5
  • Low operating burden 1/5
  • 3-year cost profile 2/5
  • Continuous audit evidence 3/5
  • On-prem & data-center coverage 5/5
  • Customization & control 3/5

Verdict

Cloud coverage is the perennial 'next release'. Multi-cloud estates on legacy suites typically end up running a second tool anyway — which is the problem you were solving.

[ Methodology ]

How this scoring works — and why you should distrust it a little

Each approach gets a 0–5 base score on seven criteria, then your profile applies published modifiers — multi-cloud penalizes legacy coverage, small-team-no-audit boosts DIY, mostly-on-prem penalizes us. The percentages are those scores summed, unweighted.

This is our model, so assume it flatters us at the margins. Two honest correctives: the base scores and every modifier ship in this page's source where you can audit them, and the verdicts are written to be quotable against our own sales team. If a rep contradicts a verdict on this page, show them this page.

What no model captures: your team's appetite. A DIY stack run by engineers who love it beats a platform nobody owns. Buy the tool your team will actually operate.

Time to first real finding
How long until it surfaces something worth fixing
Multi-cloud coverage depth
Breadth and parity across providers and Kubernetes
Low operating burden
How little engineering time it takes to run well
3-year cost profile
Licenses plus the people required to operate it
Continuous audit evidence
Framework mapping, artifact freshness, auditor access
On-prem & data-center coverage
Hardware, hypervisors, and legacy estates
Customization & control
Freedom to shape detections, data flow, and internals

[ Next step ]

Still here? Then we should probably talk

If the verdicts above pointed at us, the next honest step is a demo on your own estate — 45 minutes, a named solutions engineer, and the same candor as this page.

Sample site by SearchPod