Open-source / DIY
- Best for
- Security teams with custom requirements and engineering capacity.
- Trade-off
- More tools to connect and more evidence to assemble.
- Requires
- Ongoing maintenance and in-house security expertise.
Compare vulnerability management software.
See how Vornin compares on coverage, remediation, compliance evidence, operating effort, and cost. Built for the technical side of NIS2, DORA, and ISO 27001 compliance.
Coverage and effort
Buying models at a glance.
Compliance evidence coverage
- ← Lower vuln coverage Higher vuln coverage →
- Strong compliance evidence
- Compliance automation / GRC Vuln coverage MinimalCompliance evidence Programme-wide
-
Vuln coverage BroadCompliance evidence Strong technical
- Moderate compliance evidence
- Self-serve vulnerability management Vuln coverage BroadCompliance evidence Moderate
- Enterprise vulnerability management Vuln coverage DeepestCompliance evidence Moderate to strong
- Basic or custom compliance evidence
- Specialist scanner Vuln coverage FocusedCompliance evidence Basic reporting
- Open-source / DIY Vuln coverage ConfigurableCompliance evidence Built in-house
Indicative category positions. Evidence ranges from scan reports to technical remediation records and programme-wide control evidence.
Software comparison
Compare what is included.
- Included
- Partial, gated, or implementation-dependent
- Add-on, higher tier, separate module, or enterprise pricing
- Not included
Pricing and buying
Transparent pricing model
✓
✓
✓
€
€
Self-serve start
✓
✓
✓
✕
✕
Simple target-based pricing
◐
◐
◐
€
✕
No separate user, scanner, or module charge
✓
€
◐
€
€
Coverage in one place
External attack-surface scanning
◐
◐
✓
✓
✕
Web app and API scanning
◐
◐
◐
€
✕
Internal network scanning
◐
◐
◐
✓
✕
Code, secrets, and dependency scanning
◐
◐
◐
€
✕
Cloud posture scanning
◐
◐
◐
€
◐
Resolution workflow
Centralised findings and deduplication
◐
✕
✓
✓
✕
SLA tracking and overdue escalation
◐
✕
◐
✓
◐
Rescan verification
◐
◐
✓
✓
✕
Compliance proof
NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001+ control mapping
✕
✕
◐
€
✓
Attestation workflow and evidence vault
✕
✕
◐
€
✓
Tamper-evident audit chain
✕
✕
◐
◐
◐
Auditor-ready export
✕
◐
◐
€
✓
Governance and trust
EU-native company and EU data residency
✓
◐
◐
◐
◐
Multi-tenant workspace governance
✕
✕
◐
✓
◐
Role-based access, SSO, and SCIM
◐
€
◐
✓
◐
Control owners and expiry reminders
✕
✕
◐
€
✓
Verdict
Choose the model that fits your team.
Specialist scanner
- Best for
- Teams needing deep scanning for one attack surface.
- Trade-off
- Broader coverage and compliance proof need more tools.
- Requires
- Integration work and internal programme ownership.
Self-serve vulnerability management
- Best for
- Security teams wanting broad coverage and hands-on control.
- Trade-off
- Workflow, governance, or reporting may need higher tiers.
- Requires
- People to triage findings and drive remediation.
Enterprise vulnerability management
- Best for
- Large organisations with complex environments and advanced requirements.
- Trade-off
- Highest licensing cost and longer buying and rollout cycles.
- Requires
- Enterprise budget, implementation capacity, and a platform owner.
Compliance automation / GRC
- Best for
- Organisation-wide controls, policies, vendors, and audit evidence.
- Trade-off
- Limited native attack surface scanning and remediation.
- Requires
- Security data from vulnerability management, endpoint, cloud, and other systems.
- Best for
- Lean teams combining broad vulnerability operations with technical audit evidence.
- Trade-off
- Less specialist depth than enterprise suites and less programme breadth than GRC.
- Requires
- Your team remains responsible for remediation decisions and action.
Quick answers
Comparison FAQ.
Which vulnerability management model fits my team?
- Open-source / DIY: maximum control when you can build and run the programme.
- Specialist scanner: deep coverage for one scanning domain.
- Self-serve vulnerability management: broader coverage with less operational overhead.
- Enterprise vulnerability management: large, complex environments with budget and implementation capacity.
- Compliance automation / GRC: programme-wide controls, policies, and evidence with security data supplied by other tools.
- Vornin: broad vulnerability operations combined with audit-ready technical evidence.
Should I use an MSP or MSSP instead?
Choose a managed service when you need someone to run the programme. Expect a multiple of software-only cost: you are buying analyst time, operation, and accountability as well as tooling. Compare scope, response times, remediation ownership, evidence access, and exit terms.
Does vulnerability management replace EDR, SIEM, or GRC?
No. Vulnerability management identifies, tracks, verifies, and proves vulnerabilities. EDR/XDR handles endpoint response, SIEM/SOAR handles security events, and GRC manages governance and audit programmes. Each adds its own licence and operating cost; managed versions add a service premium.
Which compliance controls does Vornin cover?
Vornin covers the technical controls: vulnerability scanning, remediation tracking, and scan-output evidence mapped to NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001, and other frameworks. Policies, vendor management, and programme governance stay with your GRC or ISMS tooling. Auditors get technical evidence from Vornin and programme evidence from your governance stack.
How should I read this comparison?
The first column is Vornin's included baseline: every listed row is part of the platform. The five model columns show common category patterns, not guarantees for every product or deployment. Vornin does not lead every row. GRC platforms go further on programme-wide compliance evidence, enterprise vulnerability management suites go deeper on specialist scanning, and self-hosted open-source gives you full control over cost and data residency.
EU-native vulnerability management
Scan, resolve, and prove at a price you can plan for.
Vornin combines broad attack surface scanning, remediation workflow, and compliance proof with transparent pricing.
EU data residency · Working scan data deleted after each scan · Audit evidence export