Nozomi, Claroty and Dragos are excellent OT threat detection tools. But for NIS2 compliance, the question is not just "am I under attack?" — it is "can I prove it to a client, an insurer and an auditor?". That is exactly what those tools do not provide, and what 0DATA delivers.
Factual comparison on the criteria that matter for NIS2 compliance of the OT scope.
| Criterion | Nozomi · Claroty · Dragos | 0DATA |
|---|---|---|
| Positioning | Threat detection & OT asset visibility | NIS2 compliance proof, continuously sealed |
| Question addressed | "Am I under attack?" | "Can I prove it?" |
| Capture | Agents / traffic analysis depending on the vendor | Passive, zero agent, zero impact on production |
| Deliverable | Alerts, detection reports | Monthly Dossier de Diligence, signed and timestamped |
| Timestamped and sealed journal | No (internal logs, not sealed) | Yes — SPINA, Merkle SHA-256 chain |
| Timestamping | No | Technical proof element · integrated qualified eIDAS timestamping |
| Sovereignty | American vendors (Dragos, Nozomi) and American-Israeli (Claroty) | French, on-premise processing |
| Cloud | Cloud console depending on the offering | On-premise or remote — never imposed cloud |
| Pricing | On request | Published: 15–25 k€ + 2–4 k€/month/site |
| Complementarity | — | Grafts alongside an existing detection tool |
Three structural gaps, from the perspective of an IT director facing NIS2.
A detection tool shows what it saw. It does not demonstrate the continuity of monitoring — which is what the NIS2 auditor requires.
An alert is not proof. The client and the insurer want a signed and timestamped document, not a technical journal.
Hosting the monitoring of your production tool with a foreign vendor raises a sovereignty question that on-premise proof resolves.
The honest position: 0DATA does not replace a detection tool. It adds to it.
A free sealed diagnostic shows, on your scope, what continuous proof produces.
Start a sealed diagnostic