Claroty vs Ordr (2026)
The deployed standard against the enforcement engine. Claroty is the scale incumbent: 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. Ordr is built around the specific failure Claroty's scale does not by itself solve, that segmentation projects stall because teams do not trust their asset data enough to enforce policy. Ordr generates segmentation policy from behaviour learned across a stated 100 million plus devices, earning an A on AI centrality against Claroty's B, and its autonomy design is the best in the lane, simulating enforcement and showing the blast radius before any rule changes with a human gate. Claroty's record here is thinner on those axes, graded on fewer of them. If your failure mode is the largest proven install base and protocol breadth, start with Claroty. If your failure mode is turning asset visibility into enforced segmentation without a multi year project, start with Ordr.
- 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 Ordr's reported KLAS score in the 2026 report is 89.4.
- 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 strongest AI centrality case in the lane: behavioural fingerprinting on a stated 100 million plus devices generates segmentation policy from learned behaviour rather than templates, graded A against Claroty at B, where the models do the primary work.
- The best autonomy design in the category: policies are simulated and the blast radius shown before enforcement with a human approval gate, the design this index credits most because automatically isolating a misidentified clinical device is a patient safety event.
- Falsifiable deployment that closes the gap between knowing and acting: initial discovery within 48 to 72 hours and segmentation enforcement in weeks rather than the multi year projects this work usually becomes.
This comparison is published by AI Health Index, an independent research platform that compares healthcare AI vendors objectively. Claroty and Ordr are each graded against the same capability taxonomy, from each vendor's own public materials and the regulatory record, under the AI Health Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement, and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Plain facts
| Fact | Claroty | Ordr |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Healthcare Cybersecurity | Healthcare Cybersecurity |
| Founded | 2015 | Not recorded |
| Headquarters | New York, New York | Santa Clara, California, United States |
| Website | claroty.com | ordr.net |
Side by Side
Each record in one paragraph
Written to be quoted whole. Each paragraph states what the AI Health Index verified about the vendor, with the caveats attached. Generated from this pair’s live capability grades, so it moves when a grade moves.
The AI Health Index awards Claroty its top capability grade on several axes, including HIPAA and BAA Posture, Security Certifications and Trust Center and EHR and Interoperability Depth. Set against Ordr, Claroty grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center. Grades reflect evidence the AI Health Index could verify at the last review, so a low grade records disclosure the vendor has not published rather than a capability it has been shown to lack.
Source: AI Health Index, July 2026
The AI Health Index awards Ordr its top capability grade on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and EHR and Interoperability Depth. Set against Claroty, Ordr grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and FDA and Regulatory Status. Its thinnest published disclosure sits on AI Liability and Recourse. Grades reflect evidence the AI Health Index could verify at the last review, so a low grade records disclosure the vendor has not published rather than a capability it has been shown to lack.
Source: AI Health Index, July 2026
Questions buyers ask
Should we choose Claroty or Ordr?
On the axes where the AI Health Index separates them, Claroty grades higher on several axes, including Model Supply Chain Disclosure, HIPAA and BAA Posture and Security Certifications and Trust Center, and Ordr grades higher on several axes, including AI Centrality, Autonomy and Oversight Model and FDA and Regulatory Status. Ordr leads on the greater share of scored axes, but the split means the decision turns on which constraint is binding rather than on an overall winner.
Where do Claroty and Ordr differ most?
The widest separation the AI Health Index records between Claroty and Ordr is on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, where Claroty grades B and Ordr grades C. That axis sits in the AI Capability group, so it should carry the most weight for a buyer whose binding constraint is how much of the work the model itself is trusted to do.
Where do Claroty and Ordr grade the same?
The AI Health Index grades Claroty and Ordr the same on several axes, including Model and Technology Transparency, Clinical and Operational Evidence and AI Safety and PHI Stewardship. Neither holds an advantage the index can evidence on those axes, so they should not carry weight in a selection between these two.
What have Claroty and Ordr not disclosed?
At the last review, at least one of Claroty and Ordr published thin or absent detail on AI Liability and Recourse. The AI Health Index treats an absent disclosure as a gap in the public record rather than a failure of the product, so these are the axes to get in writing during diligence instead of inferring from the grade.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Healthcare Cybersecurity page.
Claroty grades B on AI centrality against Ordr's A, and a structural caveat matters for reading the rest: Claroty's record on this index is less fully assessed, carrying graded axes on AI centrality, setting, clinical evidence, and deployment but not on autonomy, model transparency, or interoperability, so several axes where Ordr is graded show as not rated for Claroty rather than as an absence of capability.
Ordr's autonomy grade of A rests on documented enforcement simulation and a human gate. A source caution on Ordr: it publishes its own comparative rankings of competing platforms, so favourable comparative material from the vendor is self interested and this index relies on it only for Ordr's own product claims. Device and facility counts are vendor reported. Neither publishes a security attestation or pricing.