What to verify
- CMMC 2.0 has three levels. Most defense contractors need Level 2 (110 NIST SP 800-171 practices).
- Ask whether the provider can help demonstrate compliance with specific CMMC practice domains (e.g., Incident Response, Audit and Accountability).
- Verify the provider's data handling meets CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information) protection requirements.
- Check if the provider has undergone a C3PAO assessment or is self-attesting.
Compliance is one filter among several. The guide to choosing an MDR provider covers how to weigh it against coverage, response authority, and cost.
10 providers
Arctic Wolf
The Concierge Security Team model is Arctic Wolf's core differentiator: a named team that knows your environment and provides proactive security reviews. Technology-agnostic design avoids vendor lock-in, and the $3M warranty is the industry's largest. The trade-off is limited data transparency, guided (not hands-on) remediation, no published detection benchmarks, and a 71% false alarm rate by their own reporting.
Cyberleaf
Cyberleaf fits buyers that want a U.S.-based SOC to operate across endpoint, cloud, identity, network and SaaS signals while supporting compliance requirements. The trade-offs are custom pricing, limited independent review signal, no public MDR-specific SLA table and sales-order details that determine what response and threat-hunting work is included.
CyFlare*
A white-label SOC that lets MSPs launch managed security on their clients' existing EDR and SIEM, with unusual operational transparency through a public SOC change log and a C3PAO-verified CMMC Level 2 assessment. The trade-offs are the channel-only model, no public pricing, vendor-reported metrics with no MITRE validation, and a small SOC headcount.
DOT Security
DOT Security is a pragmatic fit for smaller organizations that want managed cybersecurity help around endpoint MDR, SOC coverage, compliance and vCISO guidance. The trade-offs are custom pricing, limited independent MDR validation, no public response-action matrix and a broader MSSP scope that buyers need to separate from the MDR component.
Foresite Cybersecurity*
Google Cloud SecOps specialist with deep Chronicle SIEM and compliance automation expertise. Best for mid-market GCP customers needing CMMC/HIPAA/PCI alignment with managed detection. Trade-offs: human-in-the-loop response slows containment vs. autonomous platforms, high upfront deployment costs ($25K-$100K), single SOC site in Kansas with no geographic redundancy, and limited public documentation of specific response actions.
MAD Security
MAD Security is strongest where MDR is part of a regulated security operations and compliance program. The public materials are specific about DFARS, CMMC, NIST and documentation needs, which is useful for DIB and government-contractor buyers. The trade-off is custom scope, thin independent review evidence and limited public detail on MDR-specific pricing, tool stack, contractual SLAs and specific endpoint actions.
Optiv
Optiv MDR is strongest when the buyer already has a complex stack and wants MDR as part of SOC modernization on Google Security Operations. The trade-off is commercial opacity: pricing, SLA terms, SOC staffing details and breach-warranty terms are not public, and total cost depends on telemetry volume plus optional services.
Total Assure
Total Assure is strongest for SMB and regulated mid-market buyers that want a practical SOC team, not a large enterprise MDR program. Its public materials do a good job describing containment actions and onboarding. The main trade-offs are missing public pricing, thin independent reviews and limited contractual detail around SLA, warranty and third-party tool costs.
TrustNet GhostWatch
TrustNet GhostWatch is strongest where managed security and compliance need to move together. The trade-off is that public materials describe broad managed security more clearly than deep endpoint MDR, so response authority, EDR coverage and SLA terms need written confirmation.
Wirespeed*
Wirespeed is most interesting as an automated MDR layer for MSPs, lean security teams and Coalition-aligned insurance buyers. It can triage and act on alerts across existing tools rather than replacing the stack. The trade-offs are custom pricing, limited independent validation, no public SLA, no public breach warranty and an automation-heavy model that needs careful scoping.