Service 02
Toolchain Rationalization & Investment Strategy
Know what you own, what it actually covers, and what you can safely stop paying for.
The problem
Large estates accumulate forty or more security tools, bought at different times by different teams for different reasons. Nobody can produce a straight answer to what they collectively cover, where they overlap, or which gap is the one that matters. So the budget conversation happens without evidence, the renewal gets signed because canceling feels risky, and the team keeps triaging findings from tools that disagree with each other.
How we approach it
We map the estate at the capability level rather than the product level. A tool is not a thing you own, it is a set of capabilities you rent, and two tools that look completely different on a vendor grid frequently pay for the same eleven capabilities twice.
From that map three things fall out immediately: where you are paying more than once for the same coverage, which capabilities nobody provides at all, and which of those gaps sit on the paths your modeled threats actually take. That is the difference between a consolidation exercise and a cost-cutting exercise.
Then we fix the economics of attention. Reachability, exploitability and deployment context decide which findings are worth a human, gates are designed so that blocking is rare and correct, and suppressions carry evidence so they survive an audit. We orchestrate the tools you keep rather than selling you another layer.
What the work includes
- 01
Capability coverage map
Every tool you own resolved to the capabilities it genuinely provides, against the capabilities your target maturity band requires. The gaps are computed, not asserted.
- 02
Overlap and consolidation analysis
Duplicate coverage identified capability by capability, with the annualized license impact of consolidating and an honest note on what you would lose.
- 03
Product selection and battle cards
Weighted, evidence-based comparison on capability coverage, framework mapping, licensing model, staffing cost and total cost over your horizon, with the analysis shown rather than summarized.
- 04
Regulatory coverage mapping
Which framework controls your current tooling satisfies and which it does not, across CSF 2.0, SSDF, SLSA, S2C2F, SAMM, DSOMM, CIS and the EU Cyber Resilience Act.
- 05
Signal economics
Baseline the false positive rate, backlog age and share of findings ever actioned, then model what prioritization and routing return in analyst hours and in time to remediate.
- 06
Gate and orchestration design
One normalized finding pipeline with ownership routing, an explicit decision per gate about what blocks and what reports, and suppressions that record why rather than just that.
What you are left holding
- Capability coverage map of the entire estate, with gaps ranked by modeled exposure
- Consolidation plan with annualized spend impact and a migration sequence
- Framework coverage position, per framework, derived from tooling rather than a questionnaire
- Prioritization model wired to reachability, exploitability and deployment context
- Gate policy documented and implemented as code
- Board-ready investment case: cost per maturity level gained, and the risk it removes
What changes
- A defensible answer to what your security spend buys, at capability granularity
- Renewals decided on coverage evidence instead of on fear of canceling
- A backlog that reflects real exposure rather than aggregated scanner output
- Suppressions that survive an audit because they carry evidence
- Developers who read the finding, because it is usually right
Where Gantry does the work
This is the service the database was built for. Gantry maps 340 products to the capabilities they actually provide, 236 capabilities to the 560 framework controls they satisfy across 24 frameworks, and both to the attack techniques and risks they counter. A coverage map that would take a team a quarter to assemble by hand is a query. More than a decade of captured judgment about what a product really does, as opposed to what its datasheet claims, is the part that cannot be reproduced from a vendor grid.
What a tool costs
The license is about a third of the answer.
Every comparison you have been shown prices the license, because that is the number the vendor controls. The operator time, the integration work and the enablement are the rest of it, and they do not appear on any quote — which is why consolidation decisions made on license price alone so often fail to produce the saving.
A SAST program for 250 developers: the license, and everything else
Three options on one set of assumptions — three-year horizon, personnel at median US salaries with a 1.3 loaded multiplier, existing source control, training scoped to rollout. Planning estimates, not quotes: none of these vendors publishes a price at this tier.
Snyk Code
$316k a year · license is 40%
$125k$191kVeracode Static Analysis
$546k a year · license is 41%
$225k$321kCheckmarx One SAST
$587k a year · license is 34%
$200k$387k
| License | People | Integration | Training | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Snyk Code | $125k | $166k | $15k | $10k | $316k |
| Veracode Static Analysis | $225k | $276k | $30k | $15k | $546k |
| Checkmarx One SAST | $200k | $332k | $35k | $20k | $587k |
How engagements start
- Estate coverage assessment2 to 3 weeks
- Capability map, overlap analysis, gap ranking and consolidation options with spend impact. The output is the artifact your budget conversation has been missing.
- Signal-to-noise assessment2 weeks
- Measure the current false positive rate and backlog economics, model the reduction available, and quantify the analyst time it returns.
- Orchestration build8 to 12 weeks
- Implement the triage pipeline, prioritization model and gate policy, with measurement in place from day one so the change is visible rather than claimed.