Connected Device Security Platform Evaluation FAQ

Updated November 2026. Competitor facts checked November 3, 2026.

Evaluate a connected device security platform you already own based on the quality of the discovery of assets and what happens after discovery to reduce risk. Claroty, Ordr, and Armis all cover discovery, with the main differences in the share of known devices found and the detail gathered on each. The next most important test is whether the platform reduces risk: whether it ranks exploitable risk rather than theoretical vulnerability severity, detects threats, simulates segmentation policy, and enforces through your network access control (NAC) platforms and firewalls. Asimily is one option to test against them.

Few teams evaluate connected device security from a blank slate. Most already run Claroty, Ordr, or Armis, or a firewall or endpoint suite with an IoT add-on, and they are deciding whether it is enough, whether to renew, or whether to switch. The decision lands on the security leader, but the network, operations, and facilities teams that live with the result usually hold a veto.

The answers below cover what to look for in a platform you already own, and the practical questions of renewal and switching for Internet of Things (IoT), operational technology (OT), and IT assets. Each answer stands on its own, so teams can go straight to the question in front of them. Asimily publishes this FAQ and is one of the platforms discussed. Please take this into account and perform your own assessment.

Evaluating Your Current Platform

I Already Have Claroty, Ordr, or Armis. What Am I Not Getting?

What you are most likely missing is what happens after discovery. Claroty, Ordr, and Armis each provide discovery, classification, and risk scoring across IoT, OT, and IT assets, and Ordr adds segmentation policy. Asimily adds per-device exploitability analysis, IoT patching, Configuration Control snapshots, and microsegmentation that is simulated and previewed before it is enforced. The key operational distinctions center on four core areas: exploitability by attack technique, microsegmentation policy creation and preview, incident response data, and remediation beyond simple segmentation.

• Exploitability by attack technique: Asimily’s ATT&CK Analysis evaluates each vulnerability against the MITRE ATT&CK framework, pinpointing actual attack paths in your specific environment rather than relying on generic vulnerability scores. A key aspect of this is data normalization and unification across your tech stack to provide a single authoritative record of device, app, workload, middleware, and services data.
• Microsegmentation policy creation and preview: Asimily uses AI-driven grouping to automatically design tailored policies and provides a full enforcement plan preview before changes are committed, allowing network teams to validate safety prior to deployment. This is in addition to simulation before enforcement.
• Incident response data: Asimily provides no-code network alerts on any device parameter, which shortens the time attackers have to work, and full packet capture from any monitored device for forensic analysis. Ordr offers simpler rule creation and partial packet capture.
• Automated remediation beyond simple segmentation: Rather than depending solely on network-level quarantine or NAC policy updates, Asimily enables direct IoT Patching with password management, as well as Configuration Control snapshots to track changes and address root-cause risks directly on the asset.

Test each item in your own environment before relying on this list. The comparison runs both ways: Ordr offers partial switch-level enforcement, and Asimily has no switch-level enforcement of its own. Asimily also discovers what runs on assets, not just the assets themselves, including services, applications, middleware, AI agents, and more, which gives the exploitability analysis a fuller inventory to work from.

[Related: Best Armis Alternatives: 2026 Guide]

I Already Have Palo Alto Networks or Microsoft Defender for IoT. Do I Need a Dedicated Tool?

A dedicated tool is worth evaluating when a firewall or endpoint suite cannot see or act on the devices that run no agent. Add-ons built into those suites typically center on that vendor’s own enforcement points and consoles, so teams that run several NAC and firewall vendors often need policy created across all of them.

Check what each product documents today. Palo Alto Networks documents IoT Security as a service in which Device Security generates policy rule recommendations, and firewalls automate enforcement through Device-ID, with support that varies by firewall model and PAN-OS version (Palo Alto Networks documentation, updated September 1, 2026). Microsoft documents Defender for IoT as agentless, network layer monitoring with on-premises OT sensors, plus an enterprise IoT option through Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (Microsoft Learn, updated October 9, 2026).

Both fit teams already standardized on those suites. A dedicated tool adds the most when you need one inventory across IoT, OT, and IT devices, exploitability analysis by attack technique, and segmentation policy that works across NACs and firewalls from different vendors. Asimily’s Segmentation Orchestration creates, simulates, and applies policy across NACs and firewalls, and the firewall or endpoint suite stays in place as an enforcement point for their respective domains.

[Related: Microsegmentation FAQ: Tools, Zero Trust, and Segmenting IoT and OT Devices Without Disruption]

Renewal and Switching

Our Claroty, Ordr, or Armis Contract Is Up for Renewal. What Should We Evaluate?

Evaluate what Claroty, Ordr, or Armis has changed in your environment, not what the platform can display. A renewal is the one point where the vendor expects questions, so use it to compare outcomes across four areas: inventory accuracy, risk ranking, integrations, and consolidation.

• Inventory accuracy: Compare the platform’s record with the configuration management database (CMDB) and with a sample of your less common devices.
• Risk ranking: Check whether each priority reflects whether the vulnerability is exploitable on that device, and whether the reasoning is documented.
• Integration: Confirm it works with your NACs, firewalls, CMDB, and security information and event management (SIEM) tools without custom scripting.
• Consolidation: List the tools and manual steps the platform let you retire.

Ownership changes belong on the list too. ServiceNow completed its acquisition of Armis in April 2026, so Armis customers can ask how packaging, pricing, and roadmap will change under the new owner.

Check the contract’s notice date first. A proof of value typically needs several weeks, and some contracts renew automatically once the notice date passes or require long notice before obligations such as payments end. Attacks now move faster than manual response, and many legacy devices were built before today’s threats, so a platform that stops at visibility leaves the hardest work with the team.

Asimily’s Risk Simulator models the risk reduction of an action before a team commits to the time and effort needed, which helps compare the renewal against an alternative on outcomes.

[Related: Best Armis Alternatives: 2026 Guide]

Can I Replace Claroty, Ordr, or Armis With Something Else?

Yes, in most cases, but plan it as a phased migration rather than a cutover. Policies already enforced through your NACs and firewalls typically stay in place while the new platform builds its inventory, so enforcement does not stop during the switch.

The work is in what depends on the incumbent: integrations that send its data to the CMDB, SIEM, or ticketing tools, custom asset tags and groups, and reports leadership relies on. List those first. Then run both platforms in parallel, compare inventories on a sample of device types, and move integrations one at a time.

Policy deployment stays transparent. With Asimily, a user-editable enforcement plan lets administrators inspect details, adjust parameters, and bypass non-mandatory steps before vendor-specific deployment runs. The network team typically holds that approval, so involve it early.

And in general, most Asimily customers used one of the competitors listed here. [NEEDS APPROVAL: customer claim; remove or source]

[Related: Segmentation Orchestration]

Is There a Cheaper Alternative to Claroty, Ordr, or Armis?

A lower license price does not always mean a lower total cost, so compare the cost of the whole program. Price differences between platforms depend on scope, device counts, and what each license includes, so this page makes no price comparison.

Total-cost factors to weigh:

• Tools consolidated: Each tool the platform replaces removes a license and an integration to maintain.
• Analyst hours: A short, ranked remediation queue takes less triage time than a long list of findings.
• Segmentation project time: Policy that is recommended, simulated, and applied by the platform takes less project time than manually written policy.
• Deployment effort: Sensors, integrations, and services that the quote does not include add cost later.

Ask each vendor what the quote covers, how it scales when device counts grow, which modules are separate, and what services are required to reach the first enforced policy. Get the same answers in writing from every finalist, including the incumbent. Asimily’s Risk Simulator lets a team see how much risk each action removes, so cost can be weighed against outcome.

[Related: Best Armis Alternatives: 2026 Guide]

How Do I Run a Proof of Value Without Disrupting Operations?

A proof of value for connected device security runs passively first, agrees success measures with operations before it starts, and tests any network policy enforcement in simulation only. A proof of value does not need to change anything on the network, so Asimily and any other finalist can be tested without disrupting operations.

Start with passive observation from existing mirror (SPAN) ports or flow data and with read-only integrations, such as Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP), the CMDB, and the NAC. Nothing is installed on the devices. Asimily starts passive and adds safe active querying only where it is considered safe.

What to test for in a proof of value:

1. Inventory match: Compare the platform’s inventory with the CMDB and a sample of less common devices. Do the details match?
2. Exploitability: Confirm which devices carry exploitable vulnerabilities according to ATT&CK Analysis, and why.
3. Simulation: Simulate one segmentation policy from start to finish with Policy Simulation, which monitors traffic against a proposed policy without interrupting device function.
4. Enforcement plan: Review each step of the plan before anything is applied.
5. Exit criteria: Agree on pass and fail with operations before the test starts.

For example, take one device group on one VLAN, such as IP cameras. Observed flows show the cameras talk to one video server. The proposed rule allows that traffic and denies other destinations. The simulation reports what the rule would block. The approved rule is then applied through the NAC or firewall already in place. Operations colleagues typically hold a veto on any change, so show them the simulation results, not a plan.

[Related: Network Segmentation FAQ: Building, Deploying, and Maintaining Segmentation Policy]

How Long Does It Take to Switch Connected Device Security Platforms?

Switching connected device security platforms depends on the number of locations and integrations, but a phased switch is typical and the inventory comes first. A typical sequence has five steps, from a parallel run of the new platform to retirement of the old platform at the end of the contract:

1. Run the new platform in parallel with the old one.
2. Compare inventories and add integrations, starting with DHCP.
3. Review the exploitability ranking with the teams that own remediation.
4. Simulate segmentation policy, and get approval from the network and operations teams.
5. Enforce, then retire the old platform at the end of the contract.

Asimily users typically start seeing value within 48 hours of deployment and see most devices within 14 days. Time to the first enforced policy typically depends on approvals as much as on software. [VERIFY STAT: need approved figure for typical time to first enforced policy]

Approvals set the pace. In the Cisco 2025 Segmentation Report, 79% of respondents named segmentation a priority and only 33% had fully implemented it. Check the incumbent’s notice and overlap terms early, so the parallel run does not depend on a short extension.

[Related: Asset and Device Visibility FAQ]

See how Asimily compares in your environment