Compare
Transparent side-by-side comparisons.
Should you build an in-house SOC or buy managed? How does EFROS differ from a typical MSSP? The math and the capability comparisons, laid out honestly.
Why honest comparisons matter
Most comparison content in the MSSP market is vendor marketing dressed up as analysis. We don't write it that way. The TCO numbers we publish for in-house SOC are what we see in real engagements, not a model designed to make outsourcing look cheaper than it is. The capability differences between MSSPs are real, but they're different from the ones vendors spend their budget arguing about.
Who should read these comparisons
CISOs evaluating whether to build or buy 24/7 SOC coverage. CIOs consolidating MSSP providers or replacing one that isn't working. Procurement leaders trying to understand what separates offerings that look similar on paper. The pages below skip the generic "why EFROS is better" pitch and focus on structural differences you can verify.
Side-by-side breakdowns
EFROS MDR vs. Building In-house
What a real 24/7 in-house SOC actually costs: loaded salaries, platform licensing, training, and the turnover math nobody budgets for. Compared side-by-side with EFROS MDR.
EFROS vs. Typical MSSP
How we differ from a generic MSSP. Three disciplines under one contract. Dedicated analysts, not a shared pool. Pre-authorized containment. Platform-agnostic.
What to look for in a cybersecurity provider comparison
Most MSSP comparisons you'll read during procurement were written by vendors or by content marketers commissioned by vendors. The bias is usually subtle: feature-by-feature checklists that happen to favor the comparison's sponsor, carefully scoped TCO models that exclude the costs that matter most in real deployments, or aggregated analyst rankings that reward marketing budget more than operational quality. Industry analyst reports from Gartner and Forrester can be useful anchors, but they rarely tell you what a provider's engagement actually looks like in operation. This page exists because we got tired of walking clients through the math the vendor comparisons skipped.
The framework we use for real MSSP comparison has four dimensions. First, coverage scope: does the provider actually staff the shifts they claim to staff, and can they provide tenure and certification data for the analysts assigned to your account? Second, response authority: when a detection fires at 2 AM, who can execute containment without waiting for an email approval, and what's the exact SLA with service credits for misses? Third, platform independence: are you locked into a specific SIEM or EDR, and what happens to your detection content when the engagement ends? Fourth, compliance operation: does the provider produce continuous audit-ready evidence aligned to frameworks like NIST CSF and CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model, or do they hand you a quarterly report and call it done?
Build versus buy: when in-house SOC makes sense
Before we take on an MSSP engagement, we have an honest conversation about whether the client should be building in-house instead. The answer is almost always "managed" for organizations under 10,000 employees, but there are real cases where in-house makes sense. If your business model depends on proprietary threat intelligence (defense, intel community), if your regulatory regime prohibits third-party access to specific systems, or if you already have a mature SOC with strong Tier 2-3 staffing, the marginal case for MSSP weakens. For benchmarking, the SANS SOC Survey and Ponemon Institute publish annual cost and capability data that map cleanly to in-house TCO modeling. The full build-vs-buy analysis walks through the specific TCO math, from loaded analyst salaries to tool licensing to the turnover cost that most in-house models underestimate.
Why EFROS runs MSP, MSSP, and System Integration together
The structural difference that matters most in our comparison with typical MSSPs isn't feature-by-feature. It's scope. Most MSSPs sell security monitoring as a standalone service, leaving the client to stitch together an MSP for IT operations, a cloud integrator for architecture, and a separate IR firm for incident response. Each handoff adds coordination overhead, and incidents that cross discipline boundaries (which most incidents do) expose the gaps. We run all three disciplines under one contract. When a phishing attack leads to a compromised credential that pivots to cloud infrastructure that touches a legacy app, the same team owns the response end-to-end. No tickets ricochet between vendors at 3 AM.
For case studies that document how this plays out in real engagements, see our case studies page. Each case study includes quantified outcomes, architectural decisions, and client context. They're the most honest view we can give you of what a real engagement with us actually produces.
Capability matrix: in-house SOC vs. typical MSSP vs. EFROS MDR
The table below captures the operational and financial dimensions that actually matter in the build-vs-buy-vs-vendor-choice decision for mid-market organizations. Numbers come from live engagements across roughly 500 client environments, benchmarked against the SANS SOC Survey and Ponemon Institute cost data. Where we cite ranges, the low end is an efficient operation and the high end is a realistic buffer for audit-year complexity.
| Dimension | In-house SOC | Typical MSSP | EFROS MDR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time to full capability | 12-18 months | 30-60 days | 14-30 days |
| Annual cost (500-2,500 seats) | $1.5M-$3.4M loaded | $180K-$420K | $144K-$360K |
| 24/7 coverage model | Requires 8-12 FTEs | Shared pool, 100+ tenants | Named analysts, 50+ certified |
| Tier 2-3 median tenure | 18 months | 9 months | 4.2 years |
| Response authority | Internal approval chain | Email-ticket handoff | Pre-authorized containment |
| MTTD (mean time to detect) | 10-45 min | 15-30 min | < 5 min SLA |
| MTTC (mean time to contain) | 2-6 hours | 45-90 min | < 15 min SLA |
| SIEM platforms supported | Whatever you license | Locked to provider stack | Sentinel, Splunk, Elastic, QRadar |
| EDR platforms supported | Whatever you license | Locked to provider stack | CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Defender, Cortex |
| Custom detection content | Fully owned, slow to build | Generic library, minimal custom | MITRE ATT&CK library plus per-tenant custom |
| Detection IP on exit | N/A | Stays with provider | Client keeps everything |
| Compliance evidence | DIY plus GRC tool | Quarterly reports | Continuous evidence to NIST CSF, PCI, HIPAA, SOC 2, CMMC |
| vCISO availability | Separate hire ($300K+ loaded) | Rarely offered | Included in MDR tier |
| Incident response retainer | Separate firm | Separate firm | Included, on-site within 24h |
| MSP integration | Separate ops team | Separate vendor | Single contract, single SLA |
| Contract flexibility | N/A (internal) | 3-year with penalty | 1-year with 30-day offramp |
| Scaling cost (+500 seats) | +1-2 FTEs ($300-600K) | +$60-150K | +$30-75K |
The 24/7 coverage problem nobody models honestly
Most in-house SOC plans budget 24/7 coverage with 5-6 analysts. The math works on paper: a 40-hour work week times 5 analysts gives you 200 hours of coverage in a 168-hour week. What the math misses is vacation (4 weeks per year), sick days (8 days average per analyst), training time (10-15 days per analyst for certification maintenance alone), and the Tier 2-3 escalation coverage that a shift-based Tier 1 staffing model doesn't provide. A true 24/7 SOC with proper Tier 2-3 coverage and realistic PTO planning needs 8-12 FTEs at minimum, not 5-6.
The "shadow 24/7" model where analysts handle business hours and get paged after hours is what most understaffed SOCs actually run. It looks cheap until the first material incident at 2 AM. The on-call analyst is 30 minutes away from keyboard, hasn't slept in 4 hours, and hasn't touched your environment in six weeks. The decision quality during containment reflects all of that. Real 24/7 means a dedicated night shift with the same seniority as the day shift, because the most severe incidents happen disproportionately on weekends, holidays, and the 2-6 AM window when attackers know coverage is thinnest.
What "platform-agnostic" actually means
Most MSSPs build their operating model on a single SIEM and EDR stack. The business reason is real: the provider gets volume pricing, trains analysts on one platform, and builds detection content that works across all tenants. The client cost is lock-in. When the MSSP relationship ends, the detection content, SOAR playbooks, and custom rules stay with the provider. Migrating back in-house or to another MSSP requires rebuilding detection engineering from scratch, which typically takes 9-18 months.
EFROS runs a platform-agnostic model by design. Our analysts are certified across Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Elastic Security, IBM QRadar, and a handful of smaller regional SIEM platforms. Same on the EDR side: CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Palo Alto Cortex XDR, Trellix, and VMware Carbon Black. Detection content lives in version-controlled repositories the client owns from day one. If the engagement ends, you leave with your detection stack, your runbooks, and your SOAR playbooks intact.
Response authority: the gap that kills MSSP value
Ask any MSSP procurement veteran what kills the most engagements, and the answer is "escalation chain too slow." The typical MSSP flow: alert fires, Tier 1 analyst reviews, escalates to Tier 2, Tier 2 drafts a containment recommendation, ticket goes to the client security team for approval, client approves, MSSP executes. Best case that's 30-45 minutes. Real-world case during a ransomware event at 2 AM it's 90 minutes before a compromised endpoint is isolated. By then the ransomware has finished enumeration and is kicking off encryption.
We pre-authorize containment for agreed scope at contract signing. EDR isolation, account disable, network segmentation, token revocation, and a specific list of other actions run without client approval if detection conditions match. The client approves the runbook once, we execute on detection. The median MTTC for high-severity incidents in our operation is under 15 minutes because the approval loop doesn't exist. For actions outside pre-authorized scope we still require explicit approval, and the client security team can revoke pre-authorization at any time. See the ransomware response playbook for the full sequence.
Reporting and evidence for audits
Audit season is the real stress test for any security operation. In-house SOCs build evidence themselves, usually on spreadsheets. Typical MSSPs generate a quarterly report that covers what the tool vendor made easy to report on, not what the auditor wants. Continuous evidence aligned to specific frameworks is the standard we run to because we operate environments that pass SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI-DSS 4.0, HIPAA, CMMC Level 2, NYDFS Part 500, and FFIEC CAT audits on varied schedules across the client base.
The practical implementation: every control has a named owner, an evidence source, a collection cadence, and a tested mapping to the specific framework sections that will reference it. When an auditor asks for evidence of privileged access review during Q2, we produce a signed export from the IAM platform with timestamps, reviewers, and remediation actions. The same evidence maps to ISO 27001 A.9.2.5, SOC 2 CC6.1, PCI-DSS 7.1.2-7.1.3, and HIPAA 164.308(a)(4). Continuous evidence replaces the audit-season fire drill.
How we price compared to the alternatives
Transparent pricing is a promise most MSSPs make and few deliver. We price as a per-endpoint or per-user monthly fee depending on the service tier, with a clear annual all-in number before contract signing. For MDR services at mid-market scale (500-2,500 users), the all-in range is typically $12-20 per user per month, comparable to the per-user portion of a typical MSSP quote but usually 15-25% below total quoted cost because we include IR retainer, vCISO hours, and compliance evidence generation that other providers price as separate line items. For deployments above 2,500 users the per-user rate drops meaningfully with volume.
The honest comparison to in-house: a 500-2,500 user organization running full 24/7 SOC in-house is looking at $1.2M-$2.8M loaded annual cost for the security team (8-12 FTEs at $150-250K loaded), plus $200-400K for SIEM and EDR tooling, plus $100-200K for training and certification budget. Total $1.5M-$3.4M annually. The same organization with EFROS MDR lands at $144K-$360K annually depending on tier. The delta is real and it's the main reason mid-market organizations move from in-house attempts to managed services. Our full TCO breakdown shows the math with specific assumptions.
Questions to ask any provider before signing
Before signing any MSSP contract, run through this list with the provider. Their answers tell you more than any sales deck. First, who specifically are the analysts assigned to my account, and what's their tenure and certifications? If the answer is "our shared pool" without names, that's the model. Second, what's the response authority SLA with service credits for misses? If there's no credit mechanism, the SLA is marketing. Third, what happens to my detection content and runbooks when the contract ends? If the answer is "those stay with us," you're in a lock-in position. Fourth, can you produce continuous audit evidence for the specific frameworks I'm subject to? If the answer involves quarterly reports only, the compliance value is limited.
Fifth, what's the vCISO availability model? Fractional access to experienced executive security leadership is the difference between operational SOC service and strategic security partnership. Sixth, what's the incident response retainer structure? A separate IR firm adds coordination cost during the worst possible moments. Seventh, what's the contract offramp? A 3-year contract with 12-month termination penalty looks fine until the provider stops performing in year two. Eighth, can you integrate natively with my existing MSP and cloud operations, or does that require a separate vendor relationship? The answer tells you whether you're shopping for an MSSP or for a strategic partner.
When EFROS is not the right fit
Not every organization should buy managed security from us. If you run a dedicated SOC with 15+ analysts, established Tier 2-3 tenure, and mature detection engineering, the marginal value of outsourcing is lower than the cost. If your regulatory regime prohibits third-party access to classified systems (certain defense, intel, and federal workloads), the managed model doesn't fit structurally. If you need extremely specific regional compliance coverage such as a specific EU member state data residency requirement, verify our geographic footprint covers it before engaging.
Organizations at the very small end (under 100 users) are often better served by a packaged security-in-a-box SaaS product from a larger vendor, because the fixed cost of dedicated analyst coverage doesn't amortize across that user count efficiently. We work with organizations from 100 to 10,000+ seats, with the strongest value in the 500-5,000 range where 24/7 coverage is mandatory, the compliance load is substantial, but the scale doesn't justify full in-house buildout. If you're unsure where you land, a 60-minute fit assessment call usually settles it honestly, even if the conclusion is that we're not the right provider for you.