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
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 briefingValty 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
Each category page scores the same five dimensions: EBITDA translation, board-ready proof artifact, PE hold-period workflow, method transparency, and claim discipline.
Compare
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.
Compare
GRC platforms manage frameworks, track control status, and produce audit evidence. Valty sits above GRC to translate that evidence into financial exposure, board-ready proof artifacts, and remediation ranked by business impact.
Compare
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.
Compare
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Proof matrix
All comparison statements are archetype-level — no competitor is named, no fabricated customer outcome is presented, and every capability is labeled design-partner stage.
Talk to us
Design-partner engagements start with your existing source systems, not a rip-and-replace proposal.