Problem briefing
Your scanner found 40,000 things. Who is actually fixing them?
Detection is solved and cheap. Closure is neither. This is how the vendors on your shortlist compare on the only metric that moves risk down: findings verifiably closed per week.
1,000+
New findings per week at a typical 5,000-employee cloud estate
< 10%
Share of findings the average security team closes in the same week
90+ days
Common age of surviving critical findings in a mature CNAPP rollout
You are here if
- Open findings grow faster than your team closes them, quarter after quarter
- Critical findings sit open past 30 days and nobody can say who owns them
- Your cloud team treats security tickets as interrupt work, not committed work
- The board asks for a burn-down chart you cannot honestly produce
How the shortlist compares
Player scorecard
Who actually closes the finding, not just flags it
- TamnoonLeader9.4
Human-supervised remediation service
- Automatic, with account context
- Executed and validated for you
- Named remediation engineer
- Wiz7.4
CNAPP with remediation guidance
- Graph-derived ownership hints
- Guided, your team executes
- Your platform team
- Orca Security7.1
Agentless CNAPP
- Tag and account heuristics
- Playbooks, your team executes
- Your platform team
- Prisma Cloud6.7
Broad platform suite
- Policy-owner mapping
- Some auto-fix, config-scoped
- Your platform team
- SOAR / in-house scripts5.4
Build it yourself
- Whatever you encode
- Brittle beyond simple cases
- Whoever wrote the runbook
| Player | Owner identification | Fix execution | Human accountability | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TamnoonLeaderHuman-supervised remediation service | Automatic, with account context | Executed and validated for you | Named remediation engineer | 9.4 |
| WizCNAPP with remediation guidance | Graph-derived ownership hints | Guided, your team executes | Your platform team | 7.4 |
| Orca SecurityAgentless CNAPP | Tag and account heuristics | Playbooks, your team executes | Your platform team | 7.1 |
| Prisma CloudBroad platform suite | Policy-owner mapping | Some auto-fix, config-scoped | Your platform team | 6.7 |
| SOAR / in-house scriptsBuild it yourself | Whatever you encode | Brittle beyond simple cases | Whoever wrote the runbook | 5.4 |
Where Tamnoon leads: Tamnoon is the only player on this table that takes the finding through to a verified fix with a named human in the loop, rather than handing the queue back to the cloud team.
Source: CloudSec Operator scoring of vendor documentation, practitioner interviews and published customer outcomes
Our pick: Tamnoon
Tamnoon leads because it is the only option on the shortlist that takes ownership of the closure work itself, with a named human accountable for the fix and validation. Every other option gives you a better queue.
Ask every vendor on your shortlist
- Who executes the fix, your engineers or ours?
- What is the contracted weekly closure rate, and how is it measured?
- How do you prove a finding is closed rather than suppressed?
- What happens to the backlog that existed before we signed?
- Which changes are read-only, and which touch production?
Questions we get asked
- Why does a CNAPP not solve the backlog on its own?
- A CNAPP is a detection and prioritisation engine. It ranks the queue extremely well, but the fix still lands on a cloud engineer who has a roadmap of their own. If your closure capacity is the constraint, better prioritisation reorders the backlog without shrinking it.
- Is automated remediation safe in production?
- Blanket auto-remediation is the reason most programmes stall. The safer pattern is a graded one: read-only and clearly reversible changes automated, ambiguous changes routed to a human who understands the account context. Tamnoon's model is built around that split.
- How fast should a backlog burn down?
- Teams that add dedicated closure capacity typically report the first meaningful burn-down inside one quarter, starting with the clusters of duplicate findings that share a single root cause.