Healthcare cybersecurity · Compliance & risk
Clearwater
Clearwater provides healthcare cybersecurity and compliance programs - HIPAA and HITRUST-aligned risk analysis, incident response planning, and related managed support for hospitals and provider organizations. It is not an EHR or IoMT-only device scanner.
Strong fit
- Health systems that need HIPAA / HITRUST risk analysis, IR planning, and managed compliance work with clinical context
- Security and compliance leaders who want healthcare-specific frameworks instead of a generic GRC bolt-on
- Buyers comparing managed healthcare security and compliance partners rather than IoMT-only device scanners
Weak fit
- Ambulatory groups that only need a simple BAA checklist spreadsheet
- Teams shopping pure IoMT asset discovery without compliance program work
- Buyers who want a consumer telehealth product or EHR
Bottom line
Clearwater earns a Recommend for mid-market and health-system buyers that still treat HIPAA risk analysis, incident response, and third-party diligence as annual scramble projects. Outcomes look strongest when compliance and security share one risk register and close findings on a calendar, not when the engagement ends as a binder on a shelf. Product and services depth sit next to Fortified on managed healthcare security and next to Censinet on vendor risk work, with less IoMT device inventory focus than Cylera or Claroty. Implementation is a program kickoff with workshops and tooling, not a network-tap install alone. Pricing is custom professional services and platform packaging. Score sits with Fortified near the top of our cybersecurity board for compliance-heavy buyers.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Clearwater sells healthcare cybersecurity and compliance programs - risk analysis, HITRUST and HIPAA alignment, incident response planning, and related managed support - aimed at hospitals and mid-market provider organizations that need clinical-context diligence rather than a generic GRC template.
Compare Fortified when you mainly want a healthcare MSSP, Censinet when vendor RiskOps is the bottleneck, and Claroty or Cylera when IoMT inventory is the primary gap.
Score reflects strong outcomes and program-depth marks for compliance-led buyers on our cybersecurity board.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Clearwater | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Fortified Health Security | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Censinet | 7.5 | 7.1 |
| Imprivata | 7.8 | 7.4 |
| Claroty | 7.5 | 7.1 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Custom platform and professional-services packages for risk analysis, IR, and ongoing compliance support. |
| What usually drives cost | Scope of risk analysis, number of entities, managed vs self-serve tooling, and whether IR retainers are included. |
| What to ask in diligence | Annual cost for your entity count, what is platform vs services, and how findings remediation is staffed after the first assessment. |
| Published pricing | Public list price: not published. Expect a custom healthcare compliance quote. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Clearwater to function | |
| Named security and compliance owners with authority to close findings | Assessments without owners become shelfware. |
| Inventory of systems, vendors, and PHI flows in scope | Vague scope produces vague risk ratings. |
| Executive sponsor for remediation budget and downtime windows | Findings without change windows never close. |
| Agreement on frameworks (HIPAA, HITRUST, or both) before kickoff | Moving goalposts erase the engagement. |
| Incident response contacts and escalation paths drafted | IR planning fails when nobody knows who calls whom. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Track open high findings to closure dates, not slide counts | Binder thickness is not an outcome. |
| Reuse the risk register for vendor diligence and board reporting | Parallel spreadsheets recreate the problem. |
| Schedule tabletop IR exercises in the first two quarters | Unpracticed plans fail on weekends. |
| Retire duplicate GRC tools after parallel month | Dual entry doubles cost. |
| Publish a quarterly remediation digest to clinical and IT leaders | Hidden backlogs surprise audits. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You only need a one-page BAA checklist with no remediation program. | |
| No executive will fund finding closure. | |
| You refuse to share system or vendor inventory. | |
| You expect an IoMT device scanner with no compliance work. | |
| Legal will not approve a BAA or shared risk documentation. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scope & kickoff | 2–4 weeks — Workshops, asset/vendor scope, framework choice. |
| 2 | Assessment | 4–10 weeks — Risk analysis, gap findings, draft IR materials. |
| 3 | Remediation start | Ongoing — Owners close high findings on a calendar. |
| 4 | Steady state | Quarterly — Tabletops, vendor reviews, board reporting. |
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.