Dragos could probably improve in the way they present remediation information, which is called playbooks. I have seen other applications that provide a drawing of the attack path, which is very interesting. The playbooks are more written than visual, and I think visual information is very important and more effective than written information. I would suggest that Dragos improve the dashboards. I found those dashboards to be pretty good, but some other applications are slightly better regarding specifically the dashboards. Certainly, functionality is more important from my perspective, and regarding functionality, Dragos is above other solutions, or at least above the solutions we tested.
First, these are point solutions that provide vulnerabilities with respect to assets. One issue is that they have to tie up with OT security OEMs from big companies such as Honeywell and Schneider. Dragos's product success is basically dependent on how much testing is done by those vendors, and they have technology partnerships that are dependent on a third party. Second, they lack sovereign intelligence. For example, if anybody wants to buy Dragos in the UK, they do not have UK-specific threat intelligence data regarding threat actors and how they are going to target UK-based plants or some other critical infrastructure. These solutions lack this capability. Dragos is a point product, so the customer still needs to buy ten other solutions when doing threat analytics, and they do not really guide on incident response. If I am in pain, then I have to pay more to solve that problem. These vendors charge for their services, which is expensive, and another gap is in terms of security architecture. Dragos does not provide a complete OT security architecture either. These vendors are in a money-making capital race where they try to acquire companies or use consulting companies to pitch OT projects. However, I feel customers do not need to buy ten products. They can expand use cases with the same sensors and give more benefit to clients. The output ROI is less from Dragos, Nozomi, and Clarity compared to what the customer really spends. Dragos is very expensive, charging more than the OEMs. For example, if a PLC costs ten thousand dollars, a customer pays Dragos almost one to ten price in relation to what they would have spent building their plant. They are not really doing something extraordinary or out of the box, so in today's world, these vendors need to improve on their use cases. They can build a SOC along with their tool, integrate a log analytics concept, and allow the customer to not go with ten products while doing holistic threat detection and response. I feel there are gaps disturbing client operations because they do not have that much money. In OT security, spending is difficult. The risk quantification is also not clear with Dragos-like products. They do not highlight the financial impact of detected threats to customers. They do not give visibility regarding malware artifacts or detection capabilities they research on. Such visibility is not available to the client. It is running a product in isolated environments where capabilities are not one hundred percent visible to the client. The customer is more in fear in terms of their plant operations, leading them to purchase point products, which is the challenge with these products. The market is moving from these point products to expanded solutions. They can expand use cases, but costs are high again, and I do not think with AI's advent development costs have really gone down. Cost for clients should reduce, especially since labor costs are going down significantly with AI investments. If I am the client, I would ask them why, if AI is used for development, costs have not reflected that, and use cases have not expanded. These vendors are part of the cybersecurity capitalist game, nothing else. Regarding Dragos's incident response capabilities, downtime and operational integrity are fine but depend on what part of your plant is affected. Since these players do not address that angle, the customer does not understand the operational processes either. They do not alert customers if a critical section of the plant is impacted. There is no business context in these solutions. It is a half-hearted play. They brought technology very late with Clarity being the first vendor, which I prefer over Dragos. It depends on how strong your research teams are to take it back to markets, as regulations and compliance are enabling sales. What customers want is sovereign intelligence, which is not available from any vendors. If I am in the UAE today, the country wants that intelligence, but vendors sell the same offering everywhere, focusing on larger markets and not investing in small country intelligence teams. There is a gap in building intelligence, and open-source intelligence is available to everyone now. Anyone can create an AI tool, making it easy for countries to develop their own tools. Vendors need to come up with brilliant ideas to survive. The transfer of development to AI means they need to address this reality.
Arquitecto De Seguridad at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Aug 9, 2026
Being able to do more tuning and investigation in the dashboard to search for interesting things, along with some threat hunting, would help identify something beyond what is already there. Dragos could be improved by integrating it or having modules for different types of industries to offer specific characteristics or information for the pharmaceutical, oil, gas, and manufacturing industries, creating a modularized product that segments the scope effectively and reduces the size of its database. It would be beneficial for those who get certified to have a small demo that can be installed on a virtual machine to provide visibility and showcase what can be done with Dragos without relying solely on a large box, just for certified individuals or those who know the tool.
From my point of view, Dragos cannot be improved at the moment, but having more user-friendly platforms would be good. Enhancing the user interface experience to be better or more smoothly would be beneficial.
Dragos should be improved in deployment complexity as it requires OT engineering coordination. One needs to have proper engineering coordination to understand the system, deploy it, integrate it, and make all the complex things into one system. This is very challenging, and one should be really skillful and have experience to accomplish this. Cost is another area for improvement. The cost is higher due to site-based licensing and expert services. The licensing is very heavy, and expert services are required for deployment. Cost-wise is also challenging and needs to be improved. Integration needs alignment with IT security systems and compliance frameworks. Controlling cybersecurity where any fraudulent person or third party should not access the system is controlled, and managing that level of complexity is quite challenging. Since there is continuous monitoring, it can reduce operational risk losses by 20% to 30% annually. Controlling that huge amount of data and transactions, especially regarding storage, requires a lot of database space. The space-wise storage should be reduced.
I think Dragos could be improved, as I have worked in Nozomi and compared it to Nozomi. Nozomi offers a lot of flexibility in what I am able to learn and unlearn, and I have more visibility towards the nodes, links, and process variables, which I think is missing in Dragos. I think Dragos can offer more flexibility similar to Nozomi and more visibility into the assets, nodes, and links, which would make it more competitive in the future.
Director of IT at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
Apr 25, 2025
Dragos could improve its asset visibility and discovery tools, as the competitor Claroty has better options in this area. Additionally, integrating out-of-the-box with major ERPs like SAP would be beneficial. Claroty performs slightly better in native cloud environments.
Dragos offers a comprehensive cybersecurity platform specializing in industrial control systems. It provides advanced threat detection and response capabilities tailored for sectors like energy, manufacturing, and water.Dragos enhances security by providing specialized solutions that address the unique vulnerabilities present in industrial environments. With a robust framework, it monitors networks for threats, offers advanced analytics, and delivers actionable insights. This makes it...
Dragos could probably improve in the way they present remediation information, which is called playbooks. I have seen other applications that provide a drawing of the attack path, which is very interesting. The playbooks are more written than visual, and I think visual information is very important and more effective than written information. I would suggest that Dragos improve the dashboards. I found those dashboards to be pretty good, but some other applications are slightly better regarding specifically the dashboards. Certainly, functionality is more important from my perspective, and regarding functionality, Dragos is above other solutions, or at least above the solutions we tested.
First, these are point solutions that provide vulnerabilities with respect to assets. One issue is that they have to tie up with OT security OEMs from big companies such as Honeywell and Schneider. Dragos's product success is basically dependent on how much testing is done by those vendors, and they have technology partnerships that are dependent on a third party. Second, they lack sovereign intelligence. For example, if anybody wants to buy Dragos in the UK, they do not have UK-specific threat intelligence data regarding threat actors and how they are going to target UK-based plants or some other critical infrastructure. These solutions lack this capability. Dragos is a point product, so the customer still needs to buy ten other solutions when doing threat analytics, and they do not really guide on incident response. If I am in pain, then I have to pay more to solve that problem. These vendors charge for their services, which is expensive, and another gap is in terms of security architecture. Dragos does not provide a complete OT security architecture either. These vendors are in a money-making capital race where they try to acquire companies or use consulting companies to pitch OT projects. However, I feel customers do not need to buy ten products. They can expand use cases with the same sensors and give more benefit to clients. The output ROI is less from Dragos, Nozomi, and Clarity compared to what the customer really spends. Dragos is very expensive, charging more than the OEMs. For example, if a PLC costs ten thousand dollars, a customer pays Dragos almost one to ten price in relation to what they would have spent building their plant. They are not really doing something extraordinary or out of the box, so in today's world, these vendors need to improve on their use cases. They can build a SOC along with their tool, integrate a log analytics concept, and allow the customer to not go with ten products while doing holistic threat detection and response. I feel there are gaps disturbing client operations because they do not have that much money. In OT security, spending is difficult. The risk quantification is also not clear with Dragos-like products. They do not highlight the financial impact of detected threats to customers. They do not give visibility regarding malware artifacts or detection capabilities they research on. Such visibility is not available to the client. It is running a product in isolated environments where capabilities are not one hundred percent visible to the client. The customer is more in fear in terms of their plant operations, leading them to purchase point products, which is the challenge with these products. The market is moving from these point products to expanded solutions. They can expand use cases, but costs are high again, and I do not think with AI's advent development costs have really gone down. Cost for clients should reduce, especially since labor costs are going down significantly with AI investments. If I am the client, I would ask them why, if AI is used for development, costs have not reflected that, and use cases have not expanded. These vendors are part of the cybersecurity capitalist game, nothing else. Regarding Dragos's incident response capabilities, downtime and operational integrity are fine but depend on what part of your plant is affected. Since these players do not address that angle, the customer does not understand the operational processes either. They do not alert customers if a critical section of the plant is impacted. There is no business context in these solutions. It is a half-hearted play. They brought technology very late with Clarity being the first vendor, which I prefer over Dragos. It depends on how strong your research teams are to take it back to markets, as regulations and compliance are enabling sales. What customers want is sovereign intelligence, which is not available from any vendors. If I am in the UAE today, the country wants that intelligence, but vendors sell the same offering everywhere, focusing on larger markets and not investing in small country intelligence teams. There is a gap in building intelligence, and open-source intelligence is available to everyone now. Anyone can create an AI tool, making it easy for countries to develop their own tools. Vendors need to come up with brilliant ideas to survive. The transfer of development to AI means they need to address this reality.
Being able to do more tuning and investigation in the dashboard to search for interesting things, along with some threat hunting, would help identify something beyond what is already there. Dragos could be improved by integrating it or having modules for different types of industries to offer specific characteristics or information for the pharmaceutical, oil, gas, and manufacturing industries, creating a modularized product that segments the scope effectively and reduces the size of its database. It would be beneficial for those who get certified to have a small demo that can be installed on a virtual machine to provide visibility and showcase what can be done with Dragos without relying solely on a large box, just for certified individuals or those who know the tool.
From my point of view, Dragos cannot be improved at the moment, but having more user-friendly platforms would be good. Enhancing the user interface experience to be better or more smoothly would be beneficial.
Dragos should be improved in deployment complexity as it requires OT engineering coordination. One needs to have proper engineering coordination to understand the system, deploy it, integrate it, and make all the complex things into one system. This is very challenging, and one should be really skillful and have experience to accomplish this. Cost is another area for improvement. The cost is higher due to site-based licensing and expert services. The licensing is very heavy, and expert services are required for deployment. Cost-wise is also challenging and needs to be improved. Integration needs alignment with IT security systems and compliance frameworks. Controlling cybersecurity where any fraudulent person or third party should not access the system is controlled, and managing that level of complexity is quite challenging. Since there is continuous monitoring, it can reduce operational risk losses by 20% to 30% annually. Controlling that huge amount of data and transactions, especially regarding storage, requires a lot of database space. The space-wise storage should be reduced.
I think Dragos could be improved, as I have worked in Nozomi and compared it to Nozomi. Nozomi offers a lot of flexibility in what I am able to learn and unlearn, and I have more visibility towards the nodes, links, and process variables, which I think is missing in Dragos. I think Dragos can offer more flexibility similar to Nozomi and more visibility into the assets, nodes, and links, which would make it more competitive in the future.
Dragos could improve its asset visibility and discovery tools, as the competitor Claroty has better options in this area. Additionally, integrating out-of-the-box with major ERPs like SAP would be beneficial. Claroty performs slightly better in native cloud environments.