Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) 2019
Standout Vendors in an Early Market

Zingbox Drives Most Market Energy; Some Potential Buyers Put Off by Issues with Sales Process

Included in nearly all competitive IoMT purchase decisions, Zingbox is considered more often than any other vendor in this research. This is due largely to the product’s first-to-market advantage (it became available mid-2016) and its technical capabilities, including accurate identification of devices (both IoMT and IoT) and actionable insights derived from granular device data. The feedback from organizations that considered Zingbox but ultimately selected another vendor reveals incongruency in Zingbox’s pre-sales process—some received overly aggressive resources, while others say theirs were disinterested or not the right personnel to be giving the demo. Nearly one-third cite Zingbox’s pricing model as a reason for not choosing the vendor. Zingbox has been addressing this issue, and organizations that made decisions more recently are less likely to mention this concern. Palo Alto Networks recently announced their intent to acquire Zingbox.

Among Cross-Industry Vendors, Ordr’s Culture Resonates

While technology factors are the most common reason organizations cite for choosing a specific vendor, many IoMT solutions offer similar core capabilities. Thus, organizations look for vendors that can deliver more than just technology. In this environment, Ordr (CloudPost)—another cross-industry early market entrant that has seen rapid growth and high consideration—is frequently chosen for their company culture, which includes strong Cisco roots, speedy and responsive turnaround on customer requests, a willingness to share knowledge, and strong investment in customer success. However, like Zingbox, Ordr is also described as having some pre-sales
challenges, including high-pressure sales tactics and hard-to-follow demos.

"Other" includes actionable insights, future outlook, IoMT focus, lack of competitors, scalability, and vendor guidance.

Cross-industry Armis is less considered than the mindshare leaders. Key factors mentioned by the few interviewed provider organizations that selected Armis include cost, partnership, and broad IoT capabilities. Organizations that did not select Armis cite concerns about product maturity and a lack of healthcare reference sites. Looking for creative ways to manage IoMT security, organizations also considered a slew of other cross-industry vendors who were ultimately deemed to lack the needed core capabilities or healthcare depth. A handful considered Forescout Technologies but decided the NAC functionality didn’t meet their core device-discovery/asset-management needs. Other vendors considered but not chosen include Aruba, Cisco, Conventus, Forcepoint, Fortified Health Security, Glassbeam, KPI Digital, LogRhythm, MedCrypt, Observable Networks, Qualys, Securolytics, Securonix, Splunk, and WootCloud.

IoMT Services Market Immature, Despite Flurry of Partnerships; Optiv Most Mentioned

Near the end of 2018, many IoMT vendors and security services firms announced partnerships intended to augment IoMT software offerings and fill gaps in support, guidance, and even day-to-day product management. Almost half of interviewed provider organizations have engaged a services firm to help with their medical device security needs. They report using a wide variety of firms; of the 22 mentioned, only Optiv, Deloitte, Fortified Health Security, and Meditology Services were mentioned more than once. All were engaged for vendor selection as well as the following: Optiv helped customers understand the IoMT market and complete the RFP process; Deloitte performed a medical device risk assessment and translated IoMT needs into business terms for senior leadership; Fortified Health Security customers leveraged existing relationships with the vendor to get help testing integration and implementing and optimizing their IoMT solution; Meditology Services helped with medical device risk assessment and road-map development.