Healthcare cybersecurity · Connected asset / IoMT risk
Ordr
Ordr provides connected-asset and IoMT risk management for healthcare and other industries that run large fleets of medical and IoT devices. It is not a clinical identity product.
Strong fit
- Health systems that need to see and control risk across medical devices, connected devices, and building systems
- Security teams that track unknown devices, weak spots, and readiness to separate devices on the network
- Buyers comparing platforms built for connected devices rather than general IT discovery tools
Weak fit
- Groups that only need HIPAA policies, with no device inventory work
- Buyers looking for a clinical login or single sign-on product
- Teams that will not act on device risks once the dashboard shows them
Bottom line
Ordr is worth using for health system security teams that need to find, classify, and manage risk on connected medical and enterprise devices. It suits teams with network access and clear security ownership. Buyers wanting healthcare risk and compliance advisory should look at Clearwater instead.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Ordr (ordr.net) offers an AI platform that finds, sorts, and manages risk on connected medical devices, other connected devices, and building systems.
Co-founder Pandian Gnanaprakasam is CEO after returning to the role in 2025, and the company has raised more than $90 million.
It manages device risk. It is not a compliance paperwork service.
Results show up when unknown devices are identified, ranked by risk, and ready to be walled off on the network or patched.
Setup needs network access and a security owner. Prices are quoted for each customer.
Among the device security tools we review, Ordr scores near Claroty overall and above Cylera, Cynerio, and Asimily.
Cylera, Asimily, and Cynerio are the main options to compare for medical device security. Claroty suits buyers who also need to secure building and industrial systems, and Clearwater suits buyers who want healthcare risk and compliance advice plus software.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Ordr | 7.5 | 7.2 |
| Cylera | 7.4 | 7.0 |
| Claroty | 7.5 | 7.1 |
| Cynerio | 7.3 | 7.0 |
| Asimily | 7.2 | 6.8 |
| MedCrypt | 7.1 | 6.9 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | A platform for connected device risk, priced by quote. |
| What usually drives cost | Number of devices, sites, modules (visibility, risk, enforcement), and support. |
| What to ask before you buy | Yearly cost for your number of connected devices, with the healthcare uses and connections spelled out. |
| Published pricing | Ordr does not publish prices. Expect pricing based on number of devices. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Ordr to function | |
| A named security or clinical engineering lead | Dashboards with no owner get ignored. |
| Current numbers for unknown devices and critical security gaps | You cannot show value without a starting number. |
| A plan, agreed with the network team, for where to place sensors | Blind spots give false confidence. |
| People who will act on device risks after launch | Findings no one acts on do not reduce risk. |
| A clear approval process for separating networks or patching | Findings without action waste the money. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Track how many unknown devices become known every week for 90 days | The number of alerts is not a result. |
| Start with one part of the clinical network | A small real win is worth more than a broad launch with nothing behind it. |
| Fix or formally accept the most critical device risks in a regular short meeting | Unpaid balances that quietly grow older hide problems. |
| Stop using spreadsheet device lists after one month of both | Two device lists double the work. |
| Send the CIO and clinical engineering a monthly device risk summary | Hidden risks surprise leaders later. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| No one will own device risks. | |
| The network team will not allow the access needed to see devices. | |
| You expect a policy binder to replace a device inventory. | |
| Leaders will not pay to fix what is found. | |
| Biomedical engineering will not work with you on clinical device changes. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Plan and measure the starting point | 2-4 weeks. Choose network areas and sensors, and list current devices. |
| 2 | Install | 4-10 weeks. Install sensors and connections, and sort devices by type. |
| 3 | Pilot | 4-8 weeks. Run one site with the risk process in use. |
| 4 | Expand | 2-6 months. Add sites and separate networks where approved. |
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.