EDITION 01 / SIEM
Investigations for a small security team
Three analysts, cloud and identity logs, a named incident owner, and a requirement to export evidence.
Research protocol · UnassessedInspect the evidence plan ↗
✳ Our original comparison method
The right tool.
For your reality.
Capability is only half the question. Security Fit Maps ask how well a product meets a specific need—and how well a specific team can operate it.
A WORKED EXAMPLE / FICTIONAL PRODUCTS
Explore the mechanics.
These are synthetic teaching examples, not vendors or market findings. Change the evidence and watch the conclusion change.
Strong fitCapability gapsLimited fitOperating demandsCAPABILITY FIT →OPERATING FIT →
Higher fit begins at 70/100. A point is hidden if evidence coverage is below 80% on either axis, or a critical requirement is unresolved or unmet. Uncertain placement is reported separately.
YOUR SYNTHETIC SCENARIO
RESULT
Strong fit
| Axis | Observed score | Evidence coverage | Missing-evidence interval |
|---|
The interval describes the possible effect of missing ratings. It is not a statistical confidence interval. Complete coverage in this demonstration means every synthetic input is present, not that a real product was tested.
Three research editions.
Published scope and evidence gaps. Real products remain unassessed until the research meets the placement rules.
Inspect the evidence plan ↗
EDITION 02 / EDR
Response on managed endpoints
A small team supporting a mixed Windows, macOS, and Linux fleet, with staged rollout and reversible containment.
Research protocol · UnassessedInspect the evidence plan ↗
EDITION 03 / IAM
Workforce access with a clear lifecycle
Employees and contractors using a defined SaaS application set, with phishing-resistant sign-in and timely access removal.
Research protocol · UnassessedInspect the evidence plan ↗