The term “platformization”—meaning consolidating multiple tools and processes into a unified platform—is a recent coinage, but the concept has been around for decades. Cybersecurity platformization is a relatively new development, with capable services now available in a multitude of security domains. However, as new security challenges emerge, specialized solutions, capabilities, and offerings continue to be developed to address them. A key consideration in platformization is determining how to integrate the latest advancements alongside existing investments in the most scalable, efficient way.
Amid increasing complexity, evolving threats, and mounting cost pressures, security tool sprawl and spending fatigue are very real challenges. On average, an enterprise uses 83 security solutions from 29 different vendors.1 However, many of today’s organizations recognize that neither a single, all-encompassing platform nor a patchwork of standalone solutions can fully address their security needs. Instead, the goal of platformization is to develop a coherent technology strategy that strikes an effective balance between cost and complexity without sacrificing capabilities or coverage.
When Worlds Collide
Point solutions and platforms offer different business benefits and security advantages, but also come with trade-offs. Many businesses are pursuing both platformization and supplemental solutions, a strategy that seems paradoxical but underscores the need to streamline security while ensuring comprehensive protection of IT estates. That may be why the percentage of executives who say complexity is the biggest impediment to their security operations (52%1) is nearly the same as the percentage of organizations that expect to increase their number of security vendors (51%2).
A platform approach often prioritizes efficiency over the specialized functionality of point solutions, offering unified operations, streamlined procurement, and potential TCO savings. While many platforms deliver strong performance with “best-of-suite” native capabilities to address a broad range of needs, they may not fully meet an organization’s specific requirements. Additionally, closed platforms can lead to vendor lock-in, potentially limiting flexibility and slowing security responsiveness.
In contrast to platforms, point solutions are purposefully designed with a narrower but more specialized feature set, focusing deeply on satisfying specific use cases. Yet over time, with the addition of more and more individual solutions, security estates can become fragmented, bloated, and inefficient—the dreaded tool sprawl (also known as “tool creep”). More solutions also mean a broader attack surface—as well as more demands on IT teams to learn, integrate, manage, and procure these tools.
Key Considerations for Platform Consolidation
No single security vendor can provide defense-in-depth across all infrastructure, application, and data security use cases. While platformization isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach, it offers a strategic way to integrate the right mix of capabilities and solutions while reducing waste, redundancy, and complexity. Here are some key factors businesses are considering in their security consolidation decisions.
- Existing complexity. Understanding the current level of fragmentation and coverage across core business needs can play a critical role in establishing a sound rationalization strategy. Taking stock of a security estate involves identifying existing solutions in place, along with any redundancies. When the current state is understood, consolidation planning can begin by determining which security requirements should be met by dedicated point solutions and which can be managed through a platform’s native capabilities. It’s also essential to evaluate overlaps, address gaps, and assess the potential business impact of removing, consolidating, or acquiring any given solution.
- Resource availability. Just as it’s crucial to understand current application estates, having a clear-eyed view of organizational resources and capacity is also important. Determining how to prioritize security workstreams based on risk tolerance and team bandwidth can help shape platformization strategies. For example, an organization with a strong security team and culture may have the in-house capabilities to support an intentionally diverse mix of security solutions. Conversely, businesses with leaner teams may opt for more centralized solutions to maximize their available bandwidth. By aligning platformization strategies with available resources, organizations can make informed decisions on when and where to consolidate or procure new solutions.
- Solution compatibility. Security platformization also requires a deep understanding of synergies and economies of scale within tech stacks. Many security solutions now leverage APIs with pre-built integrations that connect bespoke offerings, components, and vendors. By seamlessly linking systems and solutions, security teams can simplify their investments even further. This not only reduces management overhead but can also enhance the value of existing security investments, often leading to better threat detection, attack prevention, and incident response outcomes. By understanding how disparate tools and processes can communicate and interface with one another, businesses can actively centralize and integrate functions across point solutions and platforms, driving greater consolidation and efficiency.
Best of Both Worlds
There is no single do-it-all platform in cybersecurity, so it’s incumbent on today’s organization to decide right the mix of solutions that best support its needs. A grounded approach to tool consolidation can point to the most sensible degree of platformization. By choosing the right solutions and providers to meet their specific needs and constraints, organizations can streamline their security estates without sacrificing performance or flexibility.
- IBM. “Capturing the cybersecurity dividend.” Jan 2025.
- TheCube. “Security budgets are growing but so is vendor sprawl.” Apr 2024.
