CMMC Compliant MDR Providers
MDR providers supporting CMMC compliance for defense industrial base contractors.
›› 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.
›› 9 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.
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*AI-native SOC. Uses autonomous AI analysts for most triage and investigation, with human oversight.
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*AI-native SOC. Uses autonomous AI analysts for most triage and investigation, with human oversight.
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.