VERITI, a Check Point Company

Name: VERITI, a Check Point Company
Brand: VERITI, a Check Point Company
Rating: 4.8 (7 reviews)

AI Native

Check Point Exposure Management. Intelligence-Led, Remediation-Driven.

Est 2021|Valuation $39.3M|Raised $18.5M

LinkedIn 6K|Website|FTEs 36|HQ Tel Aviv, Tel-Aviv District, IL

MarketsCyber Risk Management Vulnerability Management

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Veriti vs Wiz (cloud CNAPP) - Wiz is often selected for deep cloud graph context and cloud-native risk visibility. - Veriti's stated differentiator is moving from detection/visibility into remediation via compensating controls (for example, firewall-based mitigation) across multiple control types. If the primary need is cloud posture and misconfiguration visibility, a CNAPP like Wiz may be more core; Veriti may be complementary when cross-control enforcement and orchestration are required. - Veriti vs Axonius / JupiterOne (asset-driven exposure) - Axonius and JupiterOne emphasize asset inventory, relationship mapping, and continuous control monitoring. - Veriti focuses more on the security-control layer (firewalls, EDR, WAF, etc.) and validated remediation actions. - Check Point ecosystem impact - After the acquisition, Veriti is positioned to become part of Check Point's Infinity platform for Threat Exposure and Risk Management. Buyers should monitor roadmap and packaging changes: tighter integration could simplify procurement for some customers, or it could change neutrality and pricing over time.

	VERITI	XM Cyber	Axonius Exposures
Starting Price	Not publicly posted (quote-based)	Historical references exist (example historical report of a published contract value); typically quote-based	Not publicly posted (generally quote-based)
Best For	Multi-vendor controls assessment and remediation workflows using compensating controls and validated change steps	Attack-path and exposure modeling with prioritization tied to attack paths	Asset-centric exposure unification with actionability leveraging asset inventory
Key Strength	Emphasis on validated remediation processes across a range of security controls; compensating-control approach	Attack-path visualization and prioritization framing	Unifying exposures with asset intelligence and actionable workflows
Key Weakness	Validated remediation claims are difficult to independently verify without a pilot; limited public review volume; limited public compliance documentation	Can be costly and may require mature identity/segmentation data	May overlap with CAASM/CMDB processes; value depends on connector depth

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Veriti vs Wiz (cloud CNAPP)
- Wiz is often selected for deep cloud graph context and cloud-native risk visibility.
- Veriti's stated differentiator is moving from detection/visibility into remediation via compensating controls (for example, firewall-based mitigation) across multiple control types. If the primary need is cloud posture and misconfiguration visibility, a CNAPP like Wiz may be more core; Veriti may be complementary when cross-control enforcement and orchestration are required.
Veriti vs Axonius / JupiterOne (asset-driven exposure)
- Axonius and JupiterOne emphasize asset inventory, relationship mapping, and continuous control monitoring.
- Veriti focuses more on the security-control layer (firewalls, EDR, WAF, etc.) and validated remediation actions.
Check Point ecosystem impact
- After the acquisition, Veriti is positioned to become part of Check Point's Infinity platform for Threat Exposure and Risk Management. Buyers should monitor roadmap and packaging changes: tighter integration could simplify procurement for some customers, or it could change neutrality and pricing over time.

	VERITI	XM Cyber	Axonius Exposures
Starting Price	Not publicly posted (quote-based)	Historical references exist (example historical report of a published contract value); typically quote-based	Not publicly posted (generally quote-based)
Best For	Multi-vendor controls assessment and remediation workflows using compensating controls and validated change steps	Attack-path and exposure modeling with prioritization tied to attack paths	Asset-centric exposure unification with actionability leveraging asset inventory
Key Strength	Emphasis on validated remediation processes across a range of security controls; compensating-control approach	Attack-path visualization and prioritization framing	Unifying exposures with asset intelligence and actionable workflows
Key Weakness	Validated remediation claims are difficult to independently verify without a pilot; limited public review volume; limited public compliance documentation	Can be costly and may require mature identity/segmentation data	May overlap with CAASM/CMDB processes; value depends on connector depth