Ordr vs. Claroty
Ordr and Claroty both sell agentless device visibility across connected environments, but they built that visibility from different starting points. Ordr's Systems Control Engine grew out of enterprise IoT and IoMT visibility, with strong reach across healthcare, manufacturing, and general enterprise connected-device environments. Claroty grew out of OT specifically, and its protocol depth and industrial compliance posture reflect that origin even as the platform has expanded into IoT and healthcare. The practical question is whether your environment is OT-primary with connected devices as secondary scope, or genuinely broad across device types with OT as one segment among several.
| Criteria | Ordr | Claroty |
|---|---|---|
| Platform | ||
| Primary orientation | Agentless connected-device visibility and classification across IoT, IoMT, and OT | OT-origin CPS platform, expanded to cover IoT and healthcare |
| Platform scope | IoT, IoMT (connected medical devices), OT, and general enterprise connected devices | OT, IoT, healthcare (CPS) |
| Market fit | Enterprise — strong in healthcare systems and manufacturing with broad connected-device footprints | Mid-market and enterprise, strongest in industrial-primary environments |
| Deployment model | Agentless; passive network traffic analysis for device discovery and classification | On-premises (CTD) or cloud SaaS (xDome) |
| Technical | ||
| Passive deployment | Yes — agentless and passive by design | Yes — passive monitoring; active queries available but not required |
| OT protocol depth | Present, but breadth-first design reflects its enterprise IoT/IoMT origin rather than deep industrial protocol decode | Deep — Modbus, EtherNet/IP, DNP3, IEC 61850, IEC 60870, Profinet, OPC-UA, BACnet, HART. OT-first coverage. |
| IoMT / healthcare device classification | Strong — broad connected medical device classification as a core use case, not a secondary extension | Strong healthcare device visibility via xDome, built on the platform's broader CPS model |
| General enterprise IoT breadth | Strong — classifies a wide range of connected devices beyond OT and medical, including building systems and general enterprise IoT | IoT coverage present via xDome, with OT and healthcare as the primary emphasis |
| Vulnerability management | Present, contextualized to device classification and network segmentation | Broad across CPS device types |
| Integration and compliance | ||
| OT compliance evidence | Compliance coverage present; less depth on OT-specific frameworks compared to platforms built OT-first | Strong — NERC CIP, IEC 62443, NIS2. OT compliance posture reflects platform origin. |
| SIEM / SOAR integration | Supported, with network segmentation and NAC integrations a notable strength | Strong — one of the broader OT-focused integration libraries in the category |
| Network segmentation enforcement | Strong — segmentation policy generation and enforcement integration is a core differentiator | Available; segmentation guidance present but not the platform's primary emphasis |
| Procurement | ||
| Professional services | Required for deployment | Required for deployment |
| Pricing | $$$ — quote only | $$$ — quote only |
| Watch | — | CTD/xDome product consolidation ongoing — confirm roadmap before committing |
Capability details sourced from publicly available vendor documentation. Verify current capabilities during vendor briefing, particularly OT protocol depth claims, which vary in practice by environment.
Ordr wins when
- Your environment spans a genuinely broad range of connected devices — IoMT, general enterprise IoT, building systems — with OT as one segment among several
- Network segmentation policy generation and enforcement is a primary requirement, not an afterthought
- You're a healthcare system where connected medical device classification breadth matters as much as clinical risk context specifically
- Your security team needs strong NAC and network infrastructure integration alongside device visibility
Claroty wins when
- OT protocol depth and passive deployment fidelity in industrial environments are primary requirements
- NERC CIP compliance evidence quality is a procurement criterion
- Your environment is OT-primary — energy, manufacturing, utilities, water — with IoT and healthcare as secondary scope
- You need the deepest industrial protocol decode available in this comparison set
The real decision
This comes down to which direction your environment's complexity actually runs. Ordr's strength is breadth across connected device types with real depth in network segmentation enforcement — it's built for organizations where the hard problem is classifying and controlling a wide variety of devices, not just industrial protocol nuance. Claroty's strength is OT protocol depth and industrial compliance posture, reflecting its origin as a platform built for critical infrastructure first.
If your primary exposure is industrial — energy, manufacturing, utilities — and you need the deepest protocol-level OT visibility available, Claroty is the stronger fit. If your environment is a large health system or enterprise with a genuinely broad connected-device footprint where segmentation enforcement matters as much as visibility, Ordr's breadth-first approach may serve you better. Use the RFP Evaluation Kit to structure a vendor briefing that tests both platforms against your actual device inventory rather than the vendor's demo environment.
Related comparisons: Claroty vs. Armis · Dragos vs. Claroty · Nozomi vs. Claroty