Healthcare cybersecurity · CPS & IoMT exposure
Claroty
Claroty is a cyber-physical systems security platform used by hospitals with large connected device and facilities network footprints. It focuses on asset visibility and exposure across clinical and building systems. Ambulatory groups with little IoMT usually do not need this class of tool.
Strong fit
- Health systems with many connected devices and building control systems on clinical and facilities networks
- Security teams that need to see and rank risks beyond the laptops they manage
- Organizations ready to bring biomedical and facilities engineering into security work
Weak fit
- Outpatient groups with few connected medical devices or building systems
- Buyers who only need threat detection on the computers they manage
- IT teams that will not pay to separate networks once devices are found
Bottom line
Claroty is worth using for hospitals that need broad visibility into the security of connected medical devices and building systems, beyond a tool that covers clinical devices only. It suits teams that can work with biomedical engineering on network changes. Buyers focused on identity and access should look at Imprivata.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Claroty secures cyber-physical systems. These are connected medical devices, building systems, and other equipment on a hospital network.
Its depth here sets it apart from identity tools such as Imprivata. It also covers more than device security tools focused only on clinical devices, such as Cynerio.
Results depend on how well it finds devices and whether its risk rankings lead to real network separation and patching.
Setting it up needs network access and a working partnership with biomedical engineering. Pricing is in the range of specialized security software for large organizations.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Claroty | 7.5 | 7.1 |
| Clearwater | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Cynerio | 7.3 | 7.0 |
| Asimily | 7.2 | 6.8 |
| Imprivata | 7.8 | 7.4 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Usually priced by sites, beds, or devices found, with separate charges for sensors and services. |
| What usually drives cost | Network sensors and help with setup and adjustment. |
| What to ask before you buy | The second-year cost as your device count grows, and who owns separating networks after devices are found. |
| Published pricing | Claroty does not publish prices. Expect a custom quote, and confirm the total cost at your volume. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Claroty to function | |
| Hospital-scale numbers of connected clinical or building devices | Claroty covers far more equipment than laptop security tools. |
| A security program ready to bring in biomedical and facilities engineering | Without those teams, found problems do not get fixed. |
| Network access for sensors and traffic analysis | Seeing only part of the network gives false confidence. |
| Willingness to separate networks and patch once risks are ranked | Just listing devices does not reduce risk. |
| A clear reason to choose it over identity tools and narrow medical device tools | Buy Claroty when you need to cover a wide range of connected equipment. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Risk rankings that lead to real network separation work | Seeing problems only helps if someone fixes them. |
| A second-year cost estimate that accounts for more devices | Device counts rise, and so will the price. |
| Shared ownership of clinical and facilities network areas | Gaps between teams are where incidents hide. |
| Test sensors at one typical site before rolling out everywhere | Adjust detection early. |
| Reports to executives on how many critical devices are exposed over time | Boards pay for the slow work of fixing problems when they can see the trend. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You have few connected medical devices or building systems, as in most small outpatient groups. | |
| You only need threat detection on the computers you manage. | |
| IT will not pay to separate networks once devices are found. | |
| Biomedical and facilities engineering will not take part. | |
| Network teams will not allow the sensors or traffic access it needs. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | From signing to kickoff | 3-8 weeks for network design, a sensor plan, and bringing in biomedical and facilities engineering |
| 2 | From kickoff to first use | 8-16 weeks to find devices and see their risk at a first site or area |
| 3 | From first use to steady results | 4-9 months of separating networks and fixing risks everywhere |
Leadership
Methodology
| Weight | Factor | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Customer outcomes | Whether buyers get measurable operational or clinical-workflow results after go-live |
| 30% | Product | Capability depth, reliability, and fit for the job the category buys |
| 20% | Implementation | How hard it is to stand up, integrate, train, and stabilize |
| 15% | Pricing clarity | Whether a buyer can model total cost without a mystery quote |
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Highly recommend | Strong outcomes and product with manageable caveats |
| Recommend | Solid fit for the right buyer; know the tradeoffs |
| Conditional | Only with a specific use case or heavy caveats |
| Not recommended | Avoid for most buyers in this category |
Read our full methodology for how we weight scores and assign recommend labels.