Claroty vs Cylera
Incumbent scale against novel architecture. Claroty is the deployed standard: its Medigate derived platform reports 20 million plus devices across 2,000 plus hospital facilities with a reported 500 plus protocols, named Best in KLAS across multiple years, the largest proven footprint in the lane. 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 and the safest deployment posture in the category. The gap is evidence and maturity, Cylera grades C on clinical evidence with no independent benchmark located, where Claroty has years of Best in KLAS recognition, and Cylera's own record here is stronger on mechanism than on measured outcomes. If your failure mode is the largest proven install base and protocol breadth, start with Claroty. If your failure mode is rigorous vulnerability testing that never touches live equipment, start with Cylera, and ask it to demonstrate twin fidelity.
- The largest proven footprint in the lane: a reported 20 million plus devices across 2,000 plus hospital facilities, with discovery across a reported 500 plus protocols through the Medigate derived platform.
- A long independent track record: named Best in KLAS for Healthcare IoT Security across multiple years, where no comparable independent score was located for Cylera, graded B on clinical evidence against Cylera's C.
- Purpose built healthcare device security graded A on setting coverage, spanning IoMT, IoT, and building management systems with clinical context added to threat prioritisation.
- 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.
- The models do the primary work: the platform classifies zero day devices and protocols it has never seen rather than matching a fixed library, graded A on AI centrality against Claroty at B.
- The safest deployment posture in the lane, graded A, since vulnerability probing happens against the emulation out of band and no scanning traffic reaches live equipment.
Side-by-Side
| Axis | C Claroty |
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 |
Both grade A on setting coverage as healthcare device security specialists, and Cylera grades A on AI centrality against Claroty's B for the Digital Twin mechanism. 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 Claroty has been named Best in KLAS across multiple years. A structural caveat for reading this pairing: Claroty's record on this index is less fully assessed, carrying graded axes on AI centrality, setting, evidence, and deployment but not on model transparency or autonomy, so some Claroty axes show as not rated rather than as an absence of capability. The technical question to press Cylera on is twin fidelity. Device and facility counts are vendor reported. Neither publishes a security attestation or pricing.