Cybersecurity Competition Slide Examples: How Security
How cybersecurity pitch decks name competing vendors, explain their difference and avoid unproven "first" claims.
Cybersecurity Competition Slide Examples: How Security Startups Show Rivals
Eight competition and competitive-advantage slides from real cybersecurity pitch decks, shown in full, compare which vendors each deck names, what it claims to do differently, and how much of that claim a reader can check.
TL;DR
A cybersecurity competition slide is most useful when it names the vendors a security buyer already pays and shows what the startup replaces or does differently. RackTop maps named vendors (Vormetric, Varonis, Cisco and others) to each security layer it builds into storage, then lists the benefit, such as "50-90% Lower TCO". IFG Technology groups rivals as Malaysian, Asian and global vendors, but doesn't say how it differs. Securter names Apple's Secure Enclave and a Mobeewave-based tap-to-pay effort and cites a known Secure Enclave flaw with a link. Claroty and Evervault describe their own strengths ("market leader", "world's first") without naming a single rival.
Three newer examples show other ways to frame the field. Quarantyne competes on how its product is bought (free plan, monthly pricing, a simple API) against named bot-protection vendors it calls "black box" with "no price transparency". Oso argues that its main rival is in-house code ("Competitive landscape is dominated by DIY"). Securter's feature grid ends with a row of company valuations, which compares the size of companies, not how well their products work.
Cybersecurity competition slides from real pitch decks
Each example shows the exact slide above its analysis and links to the full teardown. Stage and year are given only where the deck states them. Claims about rivals are quoted as the slide states them; we have not checked them.
RackTop Systems competition slide — slide 7
Data storage with built-in security. The slide footer reads "Copyright RackTop Systems Inc. 2015-2019". The cybersecurity problem, solution, market and team guides use other slides from this deck.
RackTop Systems deck, slide 7. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It shows exactly which vendors a buyer would need today and which ones RackTop replaces, so the consolidation argument is concrete.
Evidence and limitation: "50-90% Lower TCO" is a wide range with no source or example customer, and the slide doesn't say where a specialist vendor would still beat RackTop.
What a founder can adapt: Draw the stack your buyer pays for today, name the vendor in each slot, and show which slots you replace.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Unified Approach — Bolt-on vs. Built-in". Left: storage surrounded by separate products, each with named vendors: Encryption/Key Management (Vormetric / Safenet), Data Protection (Data Domain / CommVault / NetBackup), Active Defense ("Cisco (but network only)"), User Behavior (Securonix / Haystax), Workflow (Stealth Bits / Veritas), Compliance/STE/NIST (Exonar / Varonis). Right: the same layers stacked inside RackTop. "The Value": "50-90% Lower TCO", continuous compliance, embedded security, faster to implement, easier to maintain.
Presentation choice: It shows exactly which vendors a buyer would need today and which ones RackTop replaces, so the consolidation argument is concrete.
When it does not fit: "50-90% Lower TCO" is a wide range with no source or example customer, and the slide doesn't say where a specialist vendor would still beat RackTop.
Cybersecurity company based in Malaysia. Stage and year not stated.
IFG Technology deck, slide 6. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: Grouping by region shows the reader that IFG knows its home market and the regional and global vendors it meets in deals.
Evidence and limitation: The slide never says how IFG differs, and the listed vendors sell very different products (a log platform, firewalls, antivirus), so the reader can't tell which ones compete with IFG's own offering.
What a founder can adapt: Keep the grouping, and add one line per group on why a buyer in your market would choose you instead.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitors" grouped by region: Malaysia (LGMS, Quann); Asia (360, Igloo, Trend Micro, Qi-Anxin); Global (Splunk, Fortinet, IBM Security, Palo Alto Networks, Kaspersky).
Presentation choice: Grouping by region shows the reader that IFG knows its home market and the regional and global vendors it meets in deals.
When it does not fit: The slide never says how IFG differs, and the listed vendors sell very different products (a log platform, firewalls, antivirus), so the reader can't tell which ones compete with IFG's own offering.
Secure payment app that lets merchants take card payments on a phone. Stage and year not stated. The fintech guides don't use this deck.
Securter Systems deck, slide 5. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It names the large companies working on the same problem and backs its point about a rival's weakness with a linked source.
Evidence and limitation: It describes the rivals' technology at length but spends one sentence on Securter, and never says how its own security differs from a secure enclave.
What a founder can adapt: When you point to a rival's weakness, link the public source, as Securter does with the Secure Enclave flaw.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competition": Mobeewave ("recently acquired by Apple for $100 million") and Global Payments, with Mastercard and NMI, "are developing a Tap on Phone secure technology"; Apple Secure Enclave stores encrypted payment data; Android uses a Trusted Execution Environment. The Securter app "can be integrated with existing payment wallets or function as a standalone payment wallet." Footnote: "Unpatchable flaw found in iPhone's Secure Enclave - all Apple chips between the A7 and the A11", with a link to the article.
Presentation choice: It names the large companies working on the same problem and backs its point about a rival's weakness with a linked source.
When it does not fit: It describes the rivals' technology at length but spends one sentence on Securter, and never says how its own security differs from a secure enclave.
Claroty deck, slide 10. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: The research point is specific: it names a measure (vulnerabilities disclosed in industrial control systems in 2020) on which Claroty says it leads.
Evidence and limitation: No competitor is named, so "market leader" and "broadest portfolio" can't be compared with anything, and the vulnerability claim has no source.
What a founder can adapt: Back a leadership claim with one named measure and year, as the research column does.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "We're the market leader with a strong competitive advantage": Deep Protocol Library (proprietary protocol library, automation vendor relationships, "a strong barrier to entry for competitors"); Best-in-Class Security Research ("Claroty leads the ICS market in 2020 in terms of new vulnerabilities disclosed"); Broadest Portfolio (industrial security capabilities, room to expand "through APIs").
Presentation choice: The research point is specific: it names a measure (vulnerabilities disclosed in industrial control systems in 2020) on which Claroty says it leads.
When it does not fit: No competitor is named, so "market leader" and "broadest portfolio" can't be compared with anything, and the vulnerability claim has no source.
Developer tools for encrypting and processing sensitive data. The cybersecurity problem, solution and team guides use other slides from this deck.
Evervault deck, slide 9. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: The Intel and Microsoft partnerships are concrete, and the slide says what they provide: engineers, security audits and co-selling.
Evidence and limitation: Two "first" claims and no named alternatives. A security buyer will know other ways to protect data in use and will expect the slide to address them.
What a founder can adapt: If partnerships are your edge, say what each partner gives you, as Evervault does.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitive Advantage": "Evervault is building the world's first cloud-based secure processing product"; "Partnerships with Intel and Microsoft provide strong seal of approval for larger customers and access to internal resources (engineers, security audits and co-sell)"; "We're building the infrastructure that bridges secure cloud hardware and web/mobile applications — first company to do this."
Presentation choice: The Intel and Microsoft partnerships are concrete, and the slide says what they provide: engineers, security audits and co-selling.
When it does not fit: Two "first" claims and no named alternatives. A security buyer will know other ways to protect data in use and will expect the slide to address them.
API that detects bots and low-quality web traffic ("API for Intellectual Property and Data Protection"). Stage and year not stated. The cybersecurity product guide uses a different slide from this deck.
Quarantyne deck, slide 7. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It names five real vendors and competes on something buyers care about but feature grids miss: how easy the product is to buy, try and trust.
Evidence and limitation: It criticises rivals for hiding prices but shows none of its own, promises "measurable value" without a measurement, and treats five different vendors as one group.
What a founder can adapt: If your edge is the buying model, print it: your price, your free tier, your integration time, next to the rivals' sales process.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competition & Advantages". Logos: Distil Networks, Kasada, PerimeterX, Imperva, ShieldSquare. "Competition: Tailored to only large enterprises; Requires appliance or engineers to implement deep integration; Dubious promises and no details of how and why solution works (black box); No price transparency." "Our advantages: Freemium / monthly SaaS; Free traffic analysis; Simple JSON over HTTPS REST API; Measurable value (details on blocked traffic); Open-sourcing of core classifier to become the reference in low-quality traffic detection."
Presentation choice: It names five real vendors and competes on something buyers care about but feature grids miss: how easy the product is to buy, try and trust.
When it does not fit: It criticises rivals for hiding prices but shows none of its own, promises "measurable value" without a measurement, and treats five different vendors as one group.
Authorization (permissions) tooling for application developers. Stage and year not stated.
Oso deck, slide 16. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It names the buyer's real alternative, building it in-house, and concedes a rival's strength (Open Policy Agent's traction) before explaining its limits.
Evidence and limitation: No figures: "complexity increases nonlinearly" and "cited as complex" have no source, and "widely hated" is an opinion.
What a founder can adapt: Make DIY a column when it is what most buyers do, and say what it costs them.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitive landscape is dominated by DIY". DIY: "Requires writing boilerplate code. Complexity increases nonlinearly with codebase"; Active Directory ("legacy, complex, widely hated"); "Auth0, Okta, et al - separates authZ logic from data, punts work to developer"; "Open Source (e.g., Pundit) - quality varies, often limited features". Styra / Open Policy Agent: "Has traction for Kubernetes infrastructure access, but architectural limitations for app authZ" (data segregated from policy engine; separate deployment, "Cited as complex to get started"). InfoSec Tools (Axiomatics, Authress, Ionic, Visual Guard): "Legacy", "Optimized for security instead of developers".
Presentation choice: It names the buyer's real alternative, building it in-house, and concedes a rival's strength (Open Policy Agent's traction) before explaining its limits.
When it does not fit: No figures: "complexity increases nonlinearly" and "cited as complex" have no source, and "widely hated" is an opinion.
Same company as the Securter example above; this is the deck's next slide, a feature grid on online fraud prevention.
Securter Systems deck, slide 6. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: The rows are specific capabilities a fraud buyer can ask about, and the rivals are the vendors such a buyer would actually shortlist.
Evidence and limitation: Ticking every row is read as selective. The valuations are undated and unsourced, and PayPal's is the whole company's value, not its fraud product's.
What a founder can adapt: Keep specific rows, add one where a rival leads, and drop the valuation row or move it, dated and sourced, to the market slide.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competition" grid: Securter, Signifyd, PayPal Fraud Protection Advanced ("Powered by Simility"), Riskified, Adyen. Eleven rows from "Supervised Machine Learning" to "Tap on Phone payment solution (EMV payment method)"; Securter is marked in all eleven, rivals in two to six. Final row "Company's valuation": TBD, $1.3B, $89.4B, $986.8M, $43.3B.
Presentation choice: The rows are specific capabilities a fraud buyer can ask about, and the rivals are the vendors such a buyer would actually shortlist.
When it does not fit: Ticking every row is read as selective. The valuations are undated and unsourced, and PayPal's is the whole company's value, not its fraud product's.
What each cybersecurity competition slide gives the reader
Named vendors mapped to what you replace make the comparison useful.
Example
Rivals named
Mapped to a layer or problem
Stated difference
Evidence for the difference
RackTop Systems
11 vendors
Yes (six security layers)
Built into storage
"50-90% Lower TCO", no source
IFG Technology
11 vendors
By region only
Not stated
None
Securter Systems
Apple, Mobeewave, Global Payments
Partly
Works with or as a wallet
Linked article on a rival's flaw
Claroty
0
No
Protocols, research, portfolio
Vulnerability disclosures (no source)
Evervault
0
No
"World's first"
Intel and Microsoft partnerships
Quarantyne
5 vendors (as one group)
No
Buying model, transparency
None shown
Oso
DIY plus 7 vendors
Yes (three approaches)
Built for developers
None (no figures)
Securter Systems (grid)
4 vendors
Yes (11 capabilities)
Ticks every row
Unsourced valuations
Key Takeaways
Security buyers already pay several vendors. Name them, and show which ones you replace or work alongside.
Map rivals to the specific layer or problem they cover, not just a logo wall.
Claims like "world's first" and "market leader" need a named measure or source.
Partnerships with large vendors can reassure buyers, but they are not a comparison.
A linked source for a rival's weakness (for example a published flaw) is stronger than an adjective.
If buyers mostly build it themselves, say so and name the cost of doing that, as Oso does.
Competing on buying model (price transparency, self-serve, free trial) is a real difference, but it still needs a price or a measured result.
A grid where you tick every row and rivals tick few is read with suspicion; valuations of rivals don't show product quality.
Build your cybersecurity competition slide
Answer these before designing the slide.
Stack. Which security products does your buyer pay for today in the area you cover?
Replace or add. Which of those do you replace, and which do you work alongside?
Difference. What do you do that the nearest vendor can't, stated in one line?
Evidence. What proves it: a test result, a customer figure, a public source?
Claims. Any "first" or "leader" claim: on what measure, and according to whom?
Copyable framework: Today: [vendor A] for [layer], [vendor B] for [layer]. With us: [what changes], shown by [evidence].
Illustrative example 1 — written by us
Before: Evervault is building the world's first cloud-based secure processing product.
After: Alternatives: [approach A], [approach B]. We differ on [measure]: [our result vs theirs], per [source].
What improved: Our illustrative rewrite, not Evervault's text. Bracketed parts are placeholders, not company facts. It replaces a "first" claim with a comparison.
How this guide relates to the other competition and cybersecurity guides
The main competition guide covers comparison tables, positioning maps and feature matrices for any company, and it already uses Portnox's competition slide. The cybersecurity problem, solution, market, product, team and traction guides cover other slides in security decks. This guide covers what is specific to security competition slides: crowded vendor stacks, consolidation claims ("one product instead of five"), and "first" or "leader" claims that buyers will test.
When the main rival is in-house code
Many security purchases compete first with what the buyer's own engineers could build. Oso, which sells authorization tooling for developers, makes this the headline of its slide: "Competitive landscape is dominated by DIY". It then splits the field into three columns: do-it-yourself ("Requires writing boilerplate code. Complexity increases nonlinearly with codebase"), Styra and Open Policy Agent, and older information-security tools (Axiomatics, Authress, Ionic, Visual Guard), described as "Legacy" and "Optimized for security instead of developers".
This works because it is honest about the buyer's real choice. An investor who knows the space would expect DIY to be the main alternative; naming it shows the founder knows it too. Oso also concedes a rival's strength: Open Policy Agent "Has traction for Kubernetes infrastructure access", before explaining why that design is harder for application authorization. A conceded strength makes the criticism that follows more believable.
What the slide doesn't give is a number. "Complexity increases nonlinearly" is a claim a reader cannot check. A stronger version would put a figure on the DIY cost: engineer weeks to build and maintain, or how often in-house authorization code causes security bugs, with a source. Our rewrite: "Building it in-house takes [N] engineer-weeks and [M] per year to maintain (source: [customer interviews or survey]); with us: [time to integrate]."
Competing on how the product is bought
Quarantyne, which detects bots and other low-quality web traffic, lists five vendors by logo (Distil Networks, Kasada, PerimeterX, Imperva, ShieldSquare) and describes them together: "Tailored to only large enterprises", "Requires appliance or engineers to implement deep integration", "Dubious promises and no details of how and why solution works (black box)", "No price transparency". Its advantages are mostly about buying and trust: "Freemium / monthly SaaS", "Free traffic analysis", "Simple JSON over HTTPS REST API", "Measurable value (details on blocked traffic)" and "Open-sourcing of core classifier".
That is a legitimate position. Security buyers often distrust products they can't inspect, and smaller companies are shut out by enterprise sales processes. But the slide says rivals lack price transparency without printing its own prices, and promises "measurable value" without a single measurement. One line with a price and one with a detection or false-positive rate from a pilot would turn the position into evidence.
The five rivals are also treated as one group. "Tailored to only large enterprises" may be true of some and not others; a reader who knows one of these vendors well will notice. Where rivals differ, give each its own line.
Feature grids and valuation rows
Securter's second competition slide is a feature grid against Signifyd, PayPal Fraud Protection Advanced ("Powered by Simility"), Riskified and Adyen. Securter has an X in all eleven rows; three rows ("Unsupervised Machine Learning", "Ability to integrate custom fraud ML models", "Know Your Client (KYC)") and the tap-on-phone row are ticked only for Securter. Readers expect a startup to choose rows it wins, so a grid where you tick everything tells them little on its own. A grid is more convincing when it includes a row or two where a rival is ahead, and when each tick links to something checkable (a product page, a test).
The last row is "Company's valuation": Securter "TBD", Signifyd "$1.3B", PayPal "$89.4B", Riskified "$986.8M", Adyen "$43.3B". The figures have no date or source, and PayPal's is the value of the whole company, not of its fraud product. A valuation row can show that a market supports large companies, but it doesn't compare products, and placing it under a feature grid invites the reader to read it as a prize Securter is entitled to. If you want to make the market-size point, put it on the market slide with dates and sources.
Background: Securter was spun out in 2020 from Digatrade Financial, a company quoted over the counter, and later raised money privately; we found no sign Securter itself is listed. The guide's earlier Securter example (slide 5) is a different slide.
Common mistakes
No rivals named. Security buyers know the market and will fill in the names themselves.
Logo wall with no difference. Say what you do that each group doesn't.
Unmeasured "first" or "leader". Name the measure and the source.
Too much about rivals. Spend at least as much space on your own difference.
Unsourced savings. Back cost claims with a customer example or method.
Ignoring do-it-yourself. If buyers mostly build it themselves, that is your main competitor.
Criticising rivals' pricing without your own. Quarantyne says rivals hide prices but shows none.
Ticking every row. Include a row where a rival leads; it makes the rest believable.
Valuations as comparison. Company valuations don't compare products and need a date and source.
Diagnostic checklist
The vendors your buyer pays today are named.
Each rival is mapped to the layer or problem it covers.
Your difference is stated in one line.
Every "first" or "leader" claim names its measure and source.
Cost or risk claims have evidence.
In-house building is shown if it is the buyer's usual choice.
Any grid includes at least one row you don't win, or explains why not.
No undated or unsourced valuations sit on the slide.
Frequently asked questions
Should a security startup list do-it-yourself as a competitor?
Yes, when most buyers build it themselves. Oso headlines its slide "Competitive landscape is dominated by DIY". Add what building in-house costs in time or risk, with a source.
Is a cheaper or easier buying model a real competitive advantage?
It can be. Quarantyne competes on a free plan, monthly pricing and a simple API against enterprise-only vendors. Show your actual price and one measured result so the claim is checkable.
Should I put competitors' valuations on my competition slide?
Usually not. Securter's valuation row compares company sizes, not products, and PayPal's figure covers the whole company. If you want to show a market supports large companies, put dated, sourced figures on the market slide.
How do I make a feature grid believable?
Choose rows buyers actually ask about, include at least one row where a rival leads, and be ready to back each tick. A grid where only you tick every row, as in Securter's, invites doubt.
How we chose these examples
Corpus: published pitch deck teardowns on StartupFundraising.com. Founder-uploaded private decks are excluded.
Selection (2026-09-28): we searched extracted slide text for slides whose opening words include "competition", "competitors", "competitive", "landscape" or "vs" and whose text mentions security, cyber, threats, breaches or malware. Excluded: Portnox's competition slide (used by the main competition guide), Camdog (video surveillance rather than cybersecurity), Rain (a duplicate of the RackTop deck) and companies outside security.
Update (2026-10-01): a further search of slide text for competition, competitors, competitive or landscape headings near security, threat, phishing, malware, endpoint or SIEM terms added Quarantyne p7, Oso p16 and Securter Systems p6. Pages were rendered at 1200 pixels from the original deck files and checked against the images. Camdog p7 and Mindolia p7 were read but left out for the same reason as before: video surveillance and facial recognition are physical security rather than cybersecurity. Securter's status was checked on the web: a 2022 SEC Form D private offering and a 2021 company update describing a planned, not completed, IPO; it was spun out in 2020 from Digatrade Financial (OTC-quoted). Quarantyne p4 is used in the cybersecurity product guide; p7 is a different slide.
Images: three slide images (Claroty, Evervault, RackTop) were rendered from the published deck PDFs and stored on 2026-09-28; IFG Technology's and Securter's were already stored.
Overlap check: no competition-slide facet for cybersecurity existed. RackTop, Claroty and Evervault appear in other guides with different slides.
Review: all five original slide images were inspected on 2026-09-28 and the three added examples on 2026-10-01 and matched to company, deck and slide number (editorial model review). Claims about rivals are quoted from the slides and were not checked. No person has yet completed an editorial review of this page.
We make no claim that any slide caused a fundraising outcome.
