Understanding the Top Medical Device Security Vendors

Medical device security has become one of the most urgent challenges in healthcare cybersecurity. A large hospital can manage between 10,000 and 25,000 connected medical devices, and these devices may account for 30 to 40 percent of all networked endpoints in clinical environments – dramatically expanding the attack surface. Healthcare is consistently among the most targeted sectors for cyberattacks, and in medical environments a breach isn’t just a data problem: ransomware that reaches connected devices can directly threaten patient safety.

The medical device security market reflects this urgency. The global market was valued at roughly $3.46 billion in 2025 and is projected to reach approximately $3.64 billion in 2026, with forecasts approaching $5.42 billion by 2034. The vendor landscape has matured rapidly, and recent consolidation signals how strategically important the space has become – including major acquisitions reshaping the competitive field.

This guide compares the top medical device security vendors in 2026 – Claroty, Armis, Asimily, Cynerio, Ordr, Forescout, Palo Alto Networks, and TerraZone. But it does so through a lens that many vendor roundups miss: medical device security operates in two distinct layers, and understanding the difference between them is the key to choosing the right combination of vendors for a healthcare environment.

The Two Layers of Medical Device Security

The medical device security market divides into two functional layers that solve different problems. Confusing them – or assuming a vendor that excels at one also excels at the other – is the most common mistake healthcare security leaders make in vendor selection.

Layer 1: Visibility and discovery. This layer answers the question “what connected devices do we have, and what is their risk?” Visibility vendors passively discover and fingerprint every connected device, classify it by type and manufacturer, identify its vulnerabilities, score its risk in clinical context, and recommend remediation or segmentation policies. This is genuinely hard – a hospital has thousands of heterogeneous devices speaking hundreds of proprietary protocols, and discovering them without disrupting clinical operations requires specialized expertise. The leading visibility vendors (Claroty, Armis, Asimily, Cynerio, Ordr) have built deep capability here.

Layer 2: Protection and containment. This layer answers a different question: “now that we know a device is vulnerable and can’t be patched, how do we actually stop a threat from reaching it or spreading from it?” Visibility tells you a device is at risk; protection actually reduces the risk. The protection layer is fundamentally about enforcement – isolating devices so that a compromise in one place cannot propagate, containing ransomware regardless of whether the device can run security software, and controlling exactly what each device can communicate with.

The critical insight: most visibility vendors recommend segmentation policies based on observed device behavior, but the actual enforcement of those policies often depends on the underlying network infrastructure – NAC systems, switch-level controls, or firewalls. Knowing that an infusion pump is vulnerable doesn’t protect the pump; enforcing isolation that contains a threat does. The protection layer is where Zero Trust microsegmentation matters, and it’s where the architectural enforcement happens that turns a segmentation recommendation into an actual barrier against lateral movement. The approach of identity-based microsegmentation that isolates connected devices through enforcement rather than recommendation addresses precisely this enforcement layer – containing threats around devices that can never be patched or hardened.

A complete medical device security program needs both layers. A vendor strong in visibility but dependent on external enforcement leaves a gap; enforcement without visibility lacks the device intelligence to set the right policies. The right vendor strategy usually combines a visibility leader with a strong enforcement architecture.

How to Evaluate Medical Device Security Vendors

The criteria below reflect what actually matters in healthcare environments, weighted for the constraints unique to medical devices:

Device discovery and classification. The ability to passively discover and accurately fingerprint medical devices across hundreds of protocols, without active scanning that could disrupt sensitive clinical equipment.

Clinical workflow non-disruption. Anything that interrupts clinical operations is unacceptable. Both visibility and protection must operate without impeding patient care or requiring device downtime.

Agentless operation. Most medical devices cannot run security agents – they run unpatchable legacy operating systems and locked-down firmware. Any capability requiring an agent on the device is a non-starter for the bulk of the medical device fleet.

Enforcement capability (not just recommendation). Whether the vendor actually enforces isolation or merely recommends policies that depend on separate infrastructure to implement. This distinction determines whether a vulnerable device is genuinely protected.

Ransomware containment. The ability to architecturally prevent ransomware from spreading device-to-device and from IT systems into the medical device fleet. In healthcare, containment is a patient-safety control.

HIPAA and regulatory alignment. Support for HIPAA Security Rule requirements, FDA medical device cybersecurity guidance, and audit/compliance reporting.

Deployment without network redesign. The ability to segment and protect devices without re-architecting the existing hospital network – a practical necessity given the disruption a redesign would cause.

Top Medical Device Security Vendors: Comparison Table

The table below compares the leading vendors across the two layers and the banking-of-criteria above. Ratings reflect each vendor’s primary strength and general fit for healthcare environments as of 2026; capabilities evolve and organizations should validate against current documentation.

Vendor	Primary Layer	Device Discovery	Enforcement / Containment	Agentless	Ransomware Containment	Healthcare Specialization
Claroty (xDome / Medigate)	Visibility	✅ Leading	⚠️ Policy recommendation	✅ Yes	⚠️ Via infrastructure	✅ Deep
Armis	Visibility	✅ Leading	⚠️ Policy recommendation	✅ Yes	⚠️ Via infrastructure	✅ Strong
Asimily	Visibility	✅ Strong	⚠️ Risk-based guidance	✅ Yes	⚠️ Via infrastructure	✅ Deep
Cynerio (Axonius)	Visibility	✅ Strong	⚠️ Policy recommendation	✅ Yes	⚠️ Via infrastructure	✅ Deep
Ordr	Visibility	✅ Strong	⚠️ Policy + NAC	✅ Yes	⚠️ Via infrastructure	✅ Strong
Forescout (CyberMDX)	Visibility + NAC	✅ Strong	✅ NAC enforcement	⚠️ Some agents	⚠️ NAC-dependent	✅ Strong
Palo Alto (Medical IoT)	Visibility + Firewall	✅ Good	✅ Firewall enforcement	✅ Yes	⚠️ Firewall-dependent	⚠️ General
TerraZone (truePass)	Protection / Containment	⚠️ Integrates	✅ Identity-based enforcement	✅ Yes	✅ Architectural	✅ Via segmentation

Legend: ✅ Strong · ⚠️ Partial / depends on deployment

The pattern: the dedicated medical device security specialists lead the visibility layer decisively, and several pair visibility with policy recommendations. Enforcement varies – some depend on NAC or firewall infrastructure to implement isolation, while architectural microsegmentation enforces isolation directly. The strongest healthcare programs typically combine a visibility leader with an enforcement architecture that contains threats regardless of device patchability.

Vendor-by-Vendor Profiles

Claroty (xDome / Medigate)

Claroty is one of the most established healthcare device security platforms, having acquired Medigate in 2022 to combine operational-technology security expertise with deep clinical device intelligence. The result is end-to-end visibility across IT, OT, IoMT, and building management systems. Claroty earned a strong KLAS 2026 score and recognition as a leader in the 2026 Gartner Magic Quadrant for CPS Protection Platforms.

Claroty’s strengths center on deep protocol analysis across hundreds of medical device protocols, risk scoring that factors in clinical context rather than raw CVSS scores, and segmentation policy recommendations based on observed device communication. As a visibility leader, Claroty excels at the discovery layer; its segmentation recommendations typically rely on network infrastructure for enforcement.

Best fit for: Hospitals prioritizing comprehensive device visibility and clinical-context risk scoring across IT/OT/IoMT.

Armis

Armis is a leading asset intelligence platform with broad device coverage extending well beyond healthcare. Its agentless discovery and extensive device knowledge base make it strong for organizations needing visibility across diverse connected assets. In December 2025, ServiceNow announced its acquisition of Armis for $7.75 billion, with the deal expected to close in the second half of 2026 – a signal of broader convergence between asset intelligence and IT service management.

Armis’s strengths include exceptionally broad device coverage, agentless operation, and a large device behavior knowledge base. As a visibility-layer leader, Armis identifies and assesses devices comprehensively; enforcement of resulting policies generally depends on integration with network infrastructure.

Best fit for: Organizations needing broad asset visibility across healthcare and non-healthcare connected devices.

Asimily

Asimily specializes in IoMT security with an exposure management platform purpose-built for healthcare delivery organizations. It was named a leader in the 2026 Gartner Magic Quadrant for CPS Protection Platforms. Asimily’s passive discovery builds detailed inventories of IT, IoT, OT, and IoMT assets and automatically profiles devices without network scans.

Asimily’s strengths include healthcare-specific focus, intelligent risk scoring that prioritizes remediation by clinical impact, and built-in HIPAA compliance reporting. As a visibility and exposure-management leader, Asimily’s enforcement is delivered through guidance and integration rather than direct architectural isolation.

Best fit for: Healthcare delivery organizations prioritizing IoMT exposure management and clinical-impact risk prioritization.

Cynerio (Axonius)

Cynerio is a healthcare-focused IoT and medical device security vendor, now part of Axonius following its acquisition. Cynerio provides strong threat detection, deep ePHI and medical device visibility, and clinical workflow integration. The Axonius acquisition positions Cynerio’s healthcare device intelligence within a broader asset management platform.

Cynerio’s strengths include healthcare specialization, deep ePHI visibility, and workflow integration. Like other visibility vendors, its protection relies on policy recommendations implemented through network controls.

Best fit for: Hospitals prioritizing ePHI-aware device visibility and threat detection, particularly those evaluating the Axonius ecosystem.

Ordr

Ordr provides connected device visibility and security with strong healthcare deployment success. Its platform discovers and classifies devices and generates segmentation policies, with enforcement options through NAC integration. Ordr is frequently ranked among the leading IoMT security platforms for healthcare device protection.

Ordr’s strengths include strong device discovery, healthcare deployment maturity, and NAC-integrated policy enforcement. The enforcement depends on the NAC and network infrastructure to implement the policies Ordr generates.

Best fit for: Hospitals seeking device visibility paired with NAC-based policy enforcement.

Forescout (CyberMDX)

Forescout combines device visibility with network access control, and acquired CyberMDX to strengthen its healthcare device capabilities. Forescout’s distinctive position is that it provides both visibility and NAC-based enforcement – bridging the two layers more than pure visibility vendors.

Forescout’s strengths include integrated visibility and NAC enforcement and broad device coverage. The consideration: NAC-based enforcement carries deployment complexity (VLAN dependencies, rollout time) and the IoMT classification depth may not match the dedicated healthcare specialists.

Best fit for: Organizations wanting combined visibility and NAC enforcement in a single platform.

Palo Alto Networks (Medical IoT Security)

Palo Alto Networks offers Medical IoT Security as part of its broader IoT security and firewall ecosystem. For hospitals already standardized on Palo Alto firewalls, the integration provides device visibility paired with firewall-based enforcement.

Palo Alto’s strengths include integration with its firewall platform and threat intelligence. The consideration: healthcare-specific device classification depth is generally considered less mature than the dedicated medical device specialists, and enforcement depends on the Palo Alto firewall infrastructure.

Best fit for: Hospitals standardized on Palo Alto’s security platform seeking integrated IoT enforcement.

TerraZone (truePass)

TerraZone occupies the protection and containment layer rather than the visibility layer. Where the specialists discover and assess devices, TerraZone’s truePass platform enforces the isolation that actually contains threats – agentless identity-based microsegmentation that treats each device or device group as its own protected segment.

TerraZone’s healthcare-relevant strengths center on enforcement that doesn’t depend on the device’s own security posture. Because medical devices overwhelmingly cannot run agents or be patched, the protection must come from the architecture around them. TerraZone’s microsegmentation isolates devices so that ransomware reaching one device cannot propagate to others or into clinical systems – containment that operates regardless of whether the device itself is vulnerable. The architectural approach of microsegmentation that contains ransomware spread across healthcare networks addresses the patient-safety dimension of medical device security: stopping lateral movement before it reaches life-critical equipment.

The platform’s agentless operation suits the medical device reality, and its deployment doesn’t require re-architecting the hospital network. TerraZone’s enforcement is based on authenticated identity rather than network location, which the approach of identity-based segmentation for isolating connected medical devices implements – each device communicates only with what it’s explicitly authorized to reach, and nothing else. TerraZone integrates with visibility platforms rather than replacing them: the visibility vendor identifies and classifies the devices, and TerraZone enforces the isolation policy.

Best fit for: Hospitals that have visibility into their devices and need an enforcement architecture that contains threats around unpatchable devices – typically paired with a visibility leader.

Why the Enforcement Layer Determines Ransomware Outcomes

Healthcare ransomware incidents share a common pattern: an initial compromise (often through phishing or a vulnerable internet-facing service) establishes a foothold, then the ransomware moves laterally through a flat network until it reaches valuable or vulnerable targets – including connected medical devices that can’t defend themselves. The damage is determined not by whether the organization knew the devices were vulnerable, but by whether the network architecture allowed lateral movement to reach them.

This is why the enforcement layer determines outcomes. A hospital can have perfect visibility – a complete inventory of every device, every vulnerability scored and prioritized – and still suffer a catastrophic ransomware spread if nothing architecturally prevents the lateral movement. Visibility informs; enforcement protects. The medical device fleet is uniquely dependent on enforcement because the devices themselves cannot be hardened – they run unpatchable systems by design and clinical necessity.

Microsegmentation provides the architectural enforcement. By isolating devices into protected segments where each device communicates only with explicitly authorized systems, microsegmentation contains a compromise to its initial foothold. Ransomware that reaches one segment cannot spread to others. The unpatchable infusion pump, the legacy imaging system, the locked-down patient monitor – all are protected not by their own (nonexistent) security capability but by the architecture that contains threats around them. The integrated platform that combines this enforcement with the broader Zero Trust capabilities healthcare environments need is implemented through the truePass platform, which delivers the containment architecture as part of a unified Zero Trust deployment.

How to Choose the Right Medical Device Security Vendors

Because medical device security operates in two layers, the right answer for most hospitals is not a single vendor but a combination:

Start with visibility. A hospital cannot protect what it cannot see. The visibility leaders (Claroty, Armis, Asimily, Cynerio, Ordr) provide the device discovery, classification, and risk assessment that any program requires. Choose based on healthcare specialization depth, clinical-context risk scoring, and integration with existing systems.

Then ensure enforcement. Visibility without enforcement leaves devices identified but unprotected. Evaluate whether your chosen visibility vendor’s enforcement (often dependent on NAC or firewall infrastructure) actually contains threats, or whether you need a dedicated enforcement architecture. For hospitals where ransomware containment around unpatchable devices is the priority, architectural microsegmentation that enforces isolation regardless of device capability is the protection layer that determines outcomes.

Match deployment to your environment. Hospitals running flat networks where ransomware could spread freely need enforcement urgently. Hospitals with significant unpatchable legacy device fleets need agentless protection. Hospitals concerned with clinical disruption need solutions that deploy without network redesign.

Consider the combination. The strongest medical device security programs typically pair a visibility leader (for device intelligence) with a strong enforcement architecture (for containment). The two layers complement each other – visibility sets the right policies, enforcement makes them real.

For hospitals evaluating the enforcement layer specifically – the architectural containment that turns segmentation recommendations into actual barriers against ransomware spread – TerraZone’s truePass should be evaluated alongside the NAC and firewall enforcement options, particularly where agentless protection of unpatchable devices and containment without network redesign are priorities.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who are the top medical device security vendors in 2026?

The leading medical device security vendors include Claroty (xDome/Medigate), Armis, Asimily, Cynerio (now part of Axonius), Ordr, Forescout (CyberMDX), Palo Alto Networks (Medical IoT Security), and TerraZone. Most of these specialize in the visibility and discovery layer – finding, classifying, and assessing connected medical devices. TerraZone focuses on the protection and containment layer, providing the microsegmentation enforcement that isolates devices and contains threats. The strongest programs typically combine a visibility leader with an enforcement architecture.

What’s the difference between medical device visibility and protection?

Visibility answers “what devices do we have and what’s their risk” – discovering, fingerprinting, and assessing connected medical devices. Protection answers “how do we actually stop threats from reaching or spreading from these devices” – enforcing isolation that contains compromises. Visibility vendors (Claroty, Armis, Asimily, Cynerio, Ordr) lead the first layer. The second layer requires enforcement, often through microsegmentation. Knowing a device is vulnerable doesn’t protect it; enforcing isolation that contains a threat does. A complete program needs both layers.

Can medical device security vendors stop ransomware?

It depends on the layer. Visibility vendors help by identifying vulnerable devices and recommending segmentation, but the actual ransomware containment depends on enforcement. Ransomware spreads through lateral movement across flat networks; stopping it requires architecturally preventing that movement. Microsegmentation that isolates devices into protected segments contains ransomware to its initial foothold – preventing spread to other devices and clinical systems. The containment is architectural, working regardless of whether the individual devices can be patched or hardened.

Why can’t medical devices just run security software?

Most medical devices cannot run security agents. They run unpatchable legacy operating systems, locked-down firmware, and FDA-regulated software that can’t be modified without recertification. Many run end-of-life operating systems that no longer receive updates. Clinical necessity means these devices often can’t be taken offline for updates. This is why agentless protection through network architecture – microsegmentation that isolates and contains threats around devices – is essential for medical device security. The protection must come from the architecture around the device, not from the device itself.

Do hospitals need both a visibility vendor and an enforcement solution?

For most hospitals, yes. Visibility and enforcement solve different problems. A visibility vendor provides the device discovery, classification, and risk assessment needed to understand the environment and set appropriate policies. An enforcement architecture actually implements isolation that contains threats. Some visibility vendors include NAC or firewall-based enforcement, but the enforcement quality varies. Hospitals prioritizing ransomware containment around unpatchable devices often pair a visibility leader with dedicated microsegmentation enforcement that contains threats regardless of device capability.

How does microsegmentation protect medical devices?

Microsegmentation isolates medical devices into protected network segments where each device communicates only with explicitly authorized systems. If a device or segment is compromised, the threat cannot spread beyond it – lateral movement is architecturally blocked. For medical devices that can’t be patched or run security software, microsegmentation provides protection through the surrounding architecture: the unpatchable device is contained, so even if a threat reaches it, the threat can’t propagate to other devices or clinical systems. Identity-based microsegmentation enforces this based on authenticated identity rather than network location, providing granular control without requiring network redesign.

How do medical device security vendors support HIPAA compliance?

Medical device security vendors support HIPAA compliance in different ways. Visibility vendors typically provide device inventory, vulnerability reporting, and HIPAA-aligned compliance documentation. Enforcement solutions support HIPAA by demonstrating access controls and segmentation that protect ePHI on and around medical devices. The HIPAA Security Rule requires access controls, audit controls, and integrity protections – microsegmentation that isolates devices and identity-based access control that attributes every device communication contribute directly to these requirements. Most hospitals combine visibility reporting with enforcement controls for comprehensive HIPAA support.

Should hospitals choose a healthcare-specialized vendor or a general platform?

For the visibility layer, healthcare-specialized vendors (Claroty, Asimily, Cynerio) generally provide deeper medical device classification and clinical-context risk scoring than general platforms. For the enforcement layer, the architecture matters more than healthcare specialization – microsegmentation that contains threats works across device types, and the key questions are whether it’s agentless, whether it enforces isolation directly, and whether it deploys without network redesign. Many hospitals combine a healthcare-specialized visibility vendor with a strong enforcement architecture for complete coverage.

Conclusion

The top medical device security vendors in 2026 – Claroty, Armis, Asimily, Cynerio, Ordr, Forescout, Palo Alto Networks, and TerraZone – each bring genuine capability, but they operate in two distinct layers that solve different problems. The visibility and discovery specialists (Claroty, Armis, Asimily, Cynerio, Ordr) lead decisively at finding, classifying, and assessing connected medical devices – the foundation any program requires. The protection and containment layer, where microsegmentation enforces the isolation that actually contains ransomware around unpatchable devices, is where the architectural enforcement happens that determines incident outcomes.

The most common vendor-selection mistake is treating these layers as interchangeable – assuming that a strong visibility platform automatically protects devices, when in reality visibility informs and enforcement protects. A hospital with perfect device visibility can still suffer catastrophic ransomware spread if nothing architecturally prevents lateral movement to its vulnerable devices.

For healthcare security leaders, the practical approach is to recognize that medical device security usually requires a combination: a visibility leader for device intelligence and risk assessment, paired with a strong enforcement architecture for containment. TerraZone’s truePass occupies the enforcement layer – agentless identity-based microsegmentation that contains threats around devices that can never be patched or hardened, deploying without network redesign and integrating with the visibility platforms that identify the devices. Hospitals evaluating their medical device security strategy should map their needs across both layers and choose vendors accordingly, recognizing that the enforcement layer is what ultimately determines whether a connected-device compromise stays contained or spreads to threaten patient care.