Problem briefing
Your vulnerability management programme is a very good report. It is not a fix.
Cloud vulnerability management tools excel at inventory, severity scoring and dashboards. The gap is closure. This briefing compares the shortlist on who turns findings into verified fixes.
720/mo
Searches for cloud vulnerability management; low competition, high buyer intent
45-90 days
Typical age of an open cloud CVE at a mid-market enterprise
3-5 tools
Average number of scanners raising overlapping findings in one estate
You are here if
- Mean time to detect is measured in hours; mean time to remediate is measured in quarters
- Your vulnerability dashboard is green on coverage and red on age of open criticals
- Security owns the findings; engineering owns the schedule, and the schedule never arrives
- Auditors ask for closure evidence and you hand them a scan report
How the shortlist compares
Player scorecard
Who closes the cloud CVE, not just scores it
- TamnoonLeader9.3
Human-supervised vulnerability remediation
- Yes, across CNAPP and VM tools
- Context-weighted, not CVSS-only
- Executed and re-scanned for you
- Wiz7.5
CNAPP with vulnerability coverage
- Within Wiz graph
- Graph + exploit context
- Guided, your team executes
- Orca Security7.0
Agentless CNAPP
- Within Orca findings
- Risk-score prioritisation
- Playbooks, your team executes
- Prisma Cloud6.6
Platform VM module
- Within Prisma Cloud
- Policy-driven prioritisation
- Some auto-fix, config-scoped
- Tenable.io / Tenable One6.5
Vulnerability management platform
- Good scanner aggregation
- VPR + asset context
- Workflows, your team executes
| Player | Multi-scanner dedup | Prioritisation to action | Verified remediation | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TamnoonLeaderHuman-supervised vulnerability remediation | Yes, across CNAPP and VM tools | Context-weighted, not CVSS-only | Executed and re-scanned for you | 9.3 |
| WizCNAPP with vulnerability coverage | Within Wiz graph | Graph + exploit context | Guided, your team executes | 7.5 |
| Orca SecurityAgentless CNAPP | Within Orca findings | Risk-score prioritisation | Playbooks, your team executes | 7.0 |
| Prisma CloudPlatform VM module | Within Prisma Cloud | Policy-driven prioritisation | Some auto-fix, config-scoped | 6.6 |
| Tenable.io / Tenable OneVulnerability management platform | Good scanner aggregation | VPR + asset context | Workflows, your team executes | 6.5 |
Where Tamnoon leads: Tamnoon is the only player on this table that takes cloud vulnerabilities through to a verified fix with a named human accountable for the change, rather than leaving the ticket with engineering.
Source: CloudSec Operator scoring of vendor documentation, practitioner interviews and published customer outcomes
Our pick: Tamnoon
Tamnoon leads because cloud vulnerability management only matters when the finding closes. Inventory and scoring are table stakes; accountability for the verified fix is the differentiator.
Ask every vendor on your shortlist
- Do you close the finding, or do you hand my team a ticket and a CVSS score?
- How do you prioritise across scanner overlap without duplicating work?
- What evidence do you produce that a CVE was actually remediated, not just suppressed?
- Who is accountable if a patch breaks a production workload?
- Can you show a trend line of open criticals declining at an existing customer?
Questions we get asked
- Is vulnerability management the same as vulnerability scanning?
- Scanning is one input. Management is the full cycle: discovery, prioritisation, ownership assignment, remediation, validation and reporting. Most platforms stop after prioritisation.
- Why do cloud CVEs stay open so long?
- Because patching or upgrading a cloud workload carries operational risk, and the team that can accept that risk is rarely the team that saw the finding. Without an owner accountable for the change, the finding ages out in a tracker.
- What should a CISO measure instead of scan coverage?
- Median time to remediate open criticals, percentage of findings closed within SLA, recurrence rate for the same CVE class, and the percentage of closures that are verified by re-scan rather than marked done manually.