Asimily vs Cylera
The lane's top rated platform against its most novel architecture. Asimily is the proven choice: ranked first in the 2026 KLAS Healthcare IoT Security report at 96.6, with contextual vulnerability prioritisation, pre purchase device evaluation, and CMMS integration that grades A on interoperability. Cylera is the technical bet: its patented Digital Twin emulates each device from network traffic and probes the replica out of band, so vulnerability testing never touches equipment attached to a patient, earning A grades on AI centrality and model transparency where Asimily sits at B, and the safest deployment posture in the lane. The gap is evidence, Cylera grades C with no independent benchmark located, where Asimily holds the current KLAS number one. If your failure mode is a proven, independently top rated platform with upstream procurement assessment, start with Asimily. If your failure mode is rigorous vulnerability testing that never touches live equipment, start with Cylera, and ask it to show twin fidelity against real device behaviour.
- The top independent healthcare rating: ranked first in the KLAS 2026 Healthcare IoT Security report at 96.6, buyer sourced research from actual users, where no comparable independent score was located for Cylera, graded B on clinical evidence against Cylera's C.
- Contextual prioritisation plus upstream assessment: each vulnerability weighed against the specific device configuration and network environment, and pre purchase device evaluation that assesses risk before a device is bought.
- The integration that connects security to maintenance: bidirectional CMMS linkage including MediMizer, graded A on interoperability, where Cylera's only named integration is Cisco, holding it at B.
- The most rigorous non invasive testing in the category: the patented Digital Twin emulates each device from network traffic and probes the replica out of band, so testing never touches equipment attached to a patient, graded A on model transparency where Asimily grades B.
- The models do the primary work: the platform classifies zero day devices and protocols it has never seen rather than matching a fixed profile library, graded A on AI centrality where Asimily grades B because its moat is a curated knowledge base.
- The safest deployment posture in the lane, graded A, since rigorous vulnerability probing happens against the emulation out of band and no scanning traffic ever reaches live equipment.
Side-by-Side
| Axis | A Asimily |
C Cylera |
|---|---|---|
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| Model and Technology Transparency | ||
| Clinical and Operational Evidence | ||
| AI Safety and PHI Stewardship | ||
| HIPAA and BAA Posture | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
| FDA and Regulatory Status | ||
| AI Governance and Bias Disclosure | ||
| EHR and Interoperability Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Setting and Specialty Coverage |
The AI centrality split is deliberate and this index states the reasoning: Asimily grades B because its substantive moat is a curated knowledge base of device profiles alongside the model, while Cylera grades A because constructing and probing a behavioural replica is a substantive modelling problem and the platform generalises to unseen devices. Against that, Cylera grades C on clinical evidence, with no KLAS score or independent benchmark located and Gartner reviewers describing its vulnerability assessment as still maturing, where Asimily is the current KLAS number one. The technical question to press Cylera on is twin fidelity, since findings only transfer if the replica matches the device. Both are cloud based and neither publishes a security attestation, shared across the category. Neither publishes pricing.