Avalor Security, a Zscaler Company

Name: Avalor Security, a Zscaler Company
Brand: Zscaler
Rating: 5 (4 reviews)

Zscaler empowers enterprises to modernize security, streamline operations and help transform business through its innovative approach to cybersecurity

Est 2007|Valuation $24.2B|Raised $2.3B|66 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 533K|Website|Web traffic 2.9M|FTEs 8,700|HQ San Jose, CA

MarketsCyber Risk Management Vulnerability Management Cloud-Native Application Protection Platform (CNAPP)Security Service Edge (SSE)Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)

Avalor Security, a Zscaler Company screenshot

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where Avalor/Zscaler UVM may be advantageous: - If an organization’s primary issue is lack of trustworthy asset identity and correlation across tools, a data-fabric approach can provide a consolidated dataset that supports exposure prioritization. - Zscaler states architectural features such as cross-source normalization; buyers should validate architecture claims and operational characteristics during evaluation. Where competitors may be preferable: - Organizations that prioritize straightforward procurement and known entry pricing may favor vendors that publish starter pricing and offer a single-vendor scanning and reporting solution. - For teams with limited integration bandwidth or without significant tool sprawl, traditional VM products may present a simpler deployment path. Pricing and procurement considerations: - Some VM vendors publish entry pricing examples; Zscaler UVM typically requires a sales process and enterprise negotiation. For cost-sensitive organizations, published entry pricing can be a deciding factor. Customer testimonial comparisons: - No direct, verifiable public quotes documenting a switch from a named competitor to Avalor were located in the public sources reviewed. Adoption trends: - Zscaler highlights UVM as part of its product messaging to investors and customers, but public, verifiable adoption metrics for UVM specifically were not identified in this research run.

	Avalor / Zscaler UVM	Rapid7 InsightVM	Tenable Vulnerability Management (Tenable.io)
Starting Price	Not publicly posted (enterprise quote); available review feedback indicates perceived high cost	Published entry pricing signals (asset-based pricing is commonly referenced)	Published pricing signals available; entry examples vary by source
Primary Use Case	Enterprises seeking correlation across multiple security and business data sources and risk-context prioritization	Organizations seeking traditional VM with asset-based pricing and established VM workflows	Organizations seeking a well-known scanning ecosystem and asset-based vulnerability management
Key Strength	Broad connector strategy and unified data model oriented toward exposure management	Published entry pricing signals; mature VM workflows	Established scanning pedigree and ecosystem
Key Weakness	Pricing opacity; integration program overhead; value depends on existing tooling	May provide less cross-domain correlation than a data-fabric approach; pricing scales with assets	Sales and procurement friction reported by some users; cost scales with assets

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where Avalor/Zscaler UVM may be advantageous:

If an organization’s primary issue is lack of trustworthy asset identity and correlation across tools, a data-fabric approach can provide a consolidated dataset that supports exposure prioritization.
Zscaler states architectural features such as cross-source normalization; buyers should validate architecture claims and operational characteristics during evaluation.

Where competitors may be preferable:

Organizations that prioritize straightforward procurement and known entry pricing may favor vendors that publish starter pricing and offer a single-vendor scanning and reporting solution.
For teams with limited integration bandwidth or without significant tool sprawl, traditional VM products may present a simpler deployment path.

Pricing and procurement considerations:

Some VM vendors publish entry pricing examples; Zscaler UVM typically requires a sales process and enterprise negotiation. For cost-sensitive organizations, published entry pricing can be a deciding factor.

Customer testimonial comparisons:

No direct, verifiable public quotes documenting a switch from a named competitor to Avalor were located in the public sources reviewed.

Adoption trends:

Zscaler highlights UVM as part of its product messaging to investors and customers, but public, verifiable adoption metrics for UVM specifically were not identified in this research run.

	Avalor / Zscaler UVM	Rapid7 InsightVM	Tenable Vulnerability Management (Tenable.io)
Starting Price	Not publicly posted (enterprise quote); available review feedback indicates perceived high cost	Published entry pricing signals (asset-based pricing is commonly referenced)	Published pricing signals available; entry examples vary by source
Primary Use Case	Enterprises seeking correlation across multiple security and business data sources and risk-context prioritization	Organizations seeking traditional VM with asset-based pricing and established VM workflows	Organizations seeking a well-known scanning ecosystem and asset-based vulnerability management
Key Strength	Broad connector strategy and unified data model oriented toward exposure management	Published entry pricing signals; mature VM workflows	Established scanning pedigree and ecosystem
Key Weakness	Pricing opacity; integration program overhead; value depends on existing tooling	May provide less cross-domain correlation than a data-fabric approach; pricing scales with assets	Sales and procurement friction reported by some users; cost scales with assets