Existing tools score, track, and assess.
Security ratings platforms, GRC systems, CRQ tools, and TPRM workflows each solve a piece of the problem. They produce scores, compliance status, risk numbers, and vendor tiers.
Compare
What existing security workflows miss, and what Valty adds.
Security ratings, GRC platforms, CRQ tools, and TPRM systems each solve part of the problem. None of them translate findings into board-ready financial proof with a traceable evidence chain. Valty sits above these workflows and adds what is missing: EBITDA impact, proof artifacts, and remediation ranked by ROI.
Request a comparison briefingDesign partner
Valty is in the design-partner stage. All capabilities described on these comparison pages are at design-partner maturity unless explicitly labeled otherwise. Comparisons are made against workflow archetypes, not named competitor products, and no fabricated customer outcomes or competitor metrics are used.
Evaluation rubrics
Four workflow archetypes. Five dimensions where Valty wins.
Each category page scores the same five dimensions: EBITDA translation, board-ready proof artifact, PE hold-period workflow, method transparency, and claim discipline.
Security ratings
Compare
Ratings score the outside. Valty proves the inside.
Security ratings platforms assess external attack surface signals and produce a score. Valty connects internal control evidence, financial context, and proof artifacts to that score so the number means something in a board room or IC meeting.
- EBITDA / dollar translation
- Board-ready proof artifact
- PE hold-period workflow
GRC automation
Compare
Own GRC and the financial proof. Not one or the other.
Valty ships a full GRC engine: source-cited catalogs for 30+ frameworks, 2,700+ controls with verbatim regulatory text, OSCAL SSP/SAP/SAR/POA&M generation, policy management with e-sign, and an auditor portal. It adds the financial layer that turns a control gap into board-ready EBITDA exposure. Run governance on Valty, or keep the GRC system you already have and let Valty read its evidence. Either way you leave with the proof artifact a GRC tool alone does not produce.
- GRC engine depth
- EBITDA / dollar translation
- Board-ready proof artifact
CRQ tools
Compare
CRQ gives a number. Valty gives the number and the proof.
Cyber-risk quantification tools produce financial estimates from threat models and loss tables. Valty connects those estimates to real control evidence, internal source systems, and a proof artifact so the board can inspect the number, not just receive it.
- EBITDA / dollar translation
- Board-ready proof artifact
- PE hold-period workflow
TPRM
Compare
TPRM scores vendors. Valty ties vendor risk to your EBITDA.
TPRM platforms assess supplier and vendor security posture through questionnaires, ratings data, and compliance certifications. Valty connects that supplier evidence to your internal control chain, financial exposure model, and board-ready proof artifact.
- EBITDA / dollar translation
- Board-ready proof artifact
- PE hold-period workflow
Valty reads their output and adds evidence context.
The evidence layer normalizes each output into a source-linked evidence object with owner, freshness, and confidence: the same structure regardless of which tool produced it.
Exposure is translated into financial terms with visible assumptions.
The FAIR-style financial model consumes the normalized evidence. Every estimate shows method and confidence next to the number so the CFO can challenge it before it becomes a board claim.
Proof leaves the platform as a board-ready artifact.
Claims that are supported export with source, confidence, and freshness. Claims that are stale or inferred are blocked until evidence improves. No claim publishes without review.
Shared rubric
Five dimensions applied to every category.
The same evaluation rubric runs across ratings, GRC, CRQ, and TPRM pages. The dimensions come from what PE operating partners, CISOs, and CFOs actually need from a security workflow.
DimensionWhy it mattersLegacy gapValty answer
EBITDA / dollar translationPE and CFO audiences make funding and remediation decisions in dollars, not risk scores.Scores, tiers, and compliance gaps are not connected to a financial model with visible assumptions.FAIR-style model with method, confidence band, and source coverage adjacent to the estimate.
Board-ready proof artifactThe board needs an artifact they can read, not a dashboard they need a login to access.Output is a report or score export. Financial context and blocked-claim state are absent.Proof pack with source, confidence, freshness, and blocked-claim ledger. Designed for board, IC, or auditor delivery.
PE hold-period workflowOperating partners need remediation ranked by enterprise value impact across a portfolio, not by framework severity.Portfolio rollup is typically a manual aggregation. Hold-period economic framing is absent.Portfolio command surface ranks actions by financial delta and tracks proof status across the hold period.
Method transparencyCFOs and audit committees challenge financial estimates they cannot inspect. A black-box model does not survive diligence.Methodology is proprietary or not visible in the output artifact. Assumptions are buried or absent.Assumptions, frequency distributions, and magnitude drivers are visible in the same view as the estimate.
Claim disciplineA board claim that later turns out to be stale or unsupported is a credibility problem, not just a technical gap.Outputs are presented as current without freshness markers or blocked-claim state.Claims carry source, freshness, and confidence. Stale evidence blocks the claim before export. It does not publish with a footnote.
Proof matrix
What this hub page can and cannot claim
All comparison statements are archetype-level: no competitor is named, no fabricated customer outcome is presented, and every capability is labeled design-partner stage.
ClaimSourceConfidenceFreshness
Workflow archetype descriptionsPublished methodology patterns, no specific vendor namedAccurate at archetype level; specific vendor behavior may varyReviewed before publication
Valty capability descriptionsValty product, design-partner stageIllustrative until source coverage is verified per tenantReviewed per design-partner cohort
Named competitor results or metricsNot publishedBlocked. No fabricated competitor claimNot applicable
One story, two ends
The barbell: fix it at the source, prove it to the board.
Valty is the right end of a barbell. The left end is OLYDI, the free, open developer engine that finds and fixes issues at the source. Same evidence spine, two audiences: the engineers who remediate, and the board that needs the dollar outcome.
Developer engine
Left end · OLYDI
Find & fix at the source
Free, open, and developer-first. OLYDI scans code and cloud and opens fixes where engineers already work, the remediation engine underneath the financial outcome.
- Free to start
- Fixes at the pull request
- Feeds verified evidence up
Outcome layer
Right end · Valty
Price it, prove it, defend it
Valty translates the same verified evidence into EBITDA-at-risk, ranks remediation by ROI, and exports board-ready proof for IC, CFO, and CISO.
- Findings to dollars
- Board / IC proof packs
- Portfolio rollup
Talk to us
Bring the tool you already use. Valty adds what it is missing.
Design-partner engagements start with your existing source systems, not a rip-and-replace proposal.