Problem briefing
You bought Wiz and the risk did not move. Here is the missing half.
Wiz is an excellent detection and context engine. It was never designed to be the team that fixes things. This compares the realistic ways to add closure capacity behind it.
2-4 weeks
Typical Wiz time-to-value on detection coverage
6+ months
Typical time before closure rate visibly improves without added capacity
1
Number of teams usually asked to absorb the whole queue
You are here if
- Wiz rollout went well, the dashboard is green on coverage and red on open items
- Security files the ticket, platform engineering deprioritises it
- Your toxic-combination count is stable or rising six months post-deployment
- Renewal is coming and you need to show risk reduction, not detection coverage
How the shortlist compares
Player scorecard
Adding closure capacity behind a Wiz deployment
- TamnoonLeader9.3
Remediation layer behind the CNAPP
- Native, consumes Wiz findings
- Dedicated, contracted
- Weeks
- Wiz native remediation7.0
Guidance and workflow
- Native
- None, guidance only
- Unchanged
- SOAR automation5.9
Playbook engine
- Via API integration
- Narrow, simple cases
- Months of build
- Hire cloud engineers5.6
In-house capacity
- Whatever they build
- Real but slow to land
- Two to three quarters
| Player | Works with Wiz findings | Closure capacity added | Time to first burn-down | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TamnoonLeaderRemediation layer behind the CNAPP | Native, consumes Wiz findings | Dedicated, contracted | Weeks | 9.3 |
| Wiz native remediationGuidance and workflow | Native | None, guidance only | Unchanged | 7.0 |
| SOAR automationPlaybook engine | Via API integration | Narrow, simple cases | Months of build | 5.9 |
| Hire cloud engineersIn-house capacity | Whatever they build | Real but slow to land | Two to three quarters | 5.6 |
Where Tamnoon leads: Tamnoon plugs in behind the Wiz graph and supplies the thing Wiz deliberately does not: people and automation accountable for closing what Wiz found.
Source: CloudSec Operator scoring of vendor documentation, practitioner interviews and published customer outcomes
Our pick: Tamnoon
Keep Wiz. It wins on detection context. Add Tamnoon behind it for the execution layer: the findings Wiz surfaces get owned, fixed and verified by someone whose job that is.
Ask every vendor on your shortlist
- Does this integrate with Wiz findings directly, or re-scan the estate?
- Who owns the change ticket end to end after Wiz raises it?
- How do you handle findings that need an application-team decision?
- Can you show a closure trend line from an existing Wiz customer?
- What is the rollback story when a fix breaks something?
Questions we get asked
- Do we need to replace Wiz?
- No, and you should not. The gap is not detection quality. Wiz stays as the source of truth for what is wrong; the question is who has capacity to make it right.
- Does Wiz not have remediation built in?
- Wiz offers remediation guidance and some workflow automation. That shortens the write-up, not the queue. The change still needs an engineer with permissions, context and time.
- What does 'added capacity' look like in headcount terms?
- Teams comparing options usually price a managed remediation service against one to three additional cloud engineers, and factor in the ramp time that hiring costs them.