Healthcare cybersecurity · CPS & IoMT exposure
Claroty
Claroty is a cyber-physical systems security platform used by hospitals with large connected device and facilities network footprints. It focuses on asset visibility and exposure across clinical and building systems. Ambulatory groups with little IoMT usually do not need this class of tool.
Strong fit
- Health systems with large connected device and industrial control footprints across clinical and facilities networks
- CISO teams that need visibility and risk prioritization beyond managed laptops
- Organizations ready to involve biomed and facilities engineering in the security program
Weak fit
- Ambulatory groups with minimal IoMT or building-system exposure
- Buyers who only need endpoint EDR on managed workstations
- IT shops unwilling to fund network segmentation follow-through after discovery
Bottom line
Claroty earns a Recommend for hospitals that need cyber-physical and IoMT visibility at a broader scale than a clinical-device-only point tool. Outcomes hinge on asset discovery quality and whether risk rankings drive real segmentation and patching work. Product depth in CPS/IoT security is the differentiator versus identity-first tools like Imprivata and versus more clinically focused IoMT peers like Cynerio. Implementation needs network access and biomed partnership. Pricing is specialized enterprise security territory.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Claroty earns a Recommend for hospitals that need cyber-physical and IoMT visibility at a broader scale than a clinical-device-only point tool. Outcomes hinge on asset discovery quality and whether risk rankings drive real segmentation and patching work. Product depth in CPS/IoT security is the differentiator versus identity-first tools like Imprivata and versus more clinically focused IoMT peers like Cynerio. Implementation needs network access and biomed partnership. Pricing is specialized enterprise security territory.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Claroty | 7.5 | 7.1 |
| Cynerio | 7.3 | 7.0 |
| Asimily | 7.2 | 6.8 |
| Imprivata | 7.8 | 7.4 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Typically scaled to sites, beds, or discovered assets, with sensor and services lines. |
| What usually drives cost | Network sensors and professional services for deployment and tuning. |
| What to ask in diligence | Year-two cost at your projected device growth, plus who owns segmentation follow-through. |
| Published pricing | Public list price: not published. Expect a custom quote; confirm total cost at your volume. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Claroty to function | |
| Connected clinical and/or facilities/CPS device footprint at hospital scale | Claroty targets broader cyber-physical visibility than laptop EDR. |
| CISO program ready to involve biomed and facilities engineering | Discovery without those partners stalls remediation. |
| Network access for sensors and traffic analysis | Incomplete visibility produces false confidence. |
| Appetite to segment and patch after rankings appear | Inventory-only projects do not reduce exposure. |
| Differentiation from identity-only tools and from narrow IoMT point tools | Buy Claroty when CPS/IoT breadth is the gap. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Risk rankings that drive real segmentation tickets | Visibility value is follow-through. |
| Year-two cost modeled at device growth | Asset counts rise; quotes should too. |
| Joint ownership of clinical vs facilities network zones | Split blind spots are how incidents hide. |
| Pilot sensors on a representative site before system-wide deploy | Tune detection quality early. |
| Executive metrics on critical exposed assets over time | Boards fund the boring remediation work when the trend is visible. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| Minimal IoMT or building-system exposure (typical small ambulatory). | |
| You only need endpoint EDR on managed workstations. | |
| IT will not fund segmentation follow-through after discovery. | |
| Biomed and facilities engineering will not participate. | |
| Network teams will not allow required sensor or traffic visibility. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract signed → kickoff | 3–8 weeks (network design, sensor plan, biomed/facilities engagement) |
| 2 | Kickoff → first live workflow | 8–16 weeks for discovery and risk views on a first site or zone |
| 3 | First live workflow → steady value | 4–9 months of segmentation and remediation across the footprint |
Methodology
| Weight | Factor | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Customer outcomes | Whether buyers get measurable operational or clinical-workflow results after go-live |
| 30% | Product | Capability depth, reliability, and fit for the job the category actually buys |
| 20% | Implementation | How hard it is to stand up, integrate, train, and stabilize |
| 15% | Pricing clarity | Whether a buyer can model total cost without a mystery quote |
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Highly recommend | Strong outcomes and product with manageable caveats |
| Recommend | Solid fit for the right buyer; know the tradeoffs |
| Conditional | Only with a specific use case or heavy caveats |
| Not recommended | Avoid for most buyers in this category |
Read our full methodology for how we weight scores and assign recommend labels.