Deepak Gupta

Security Tool Overlap Analyzer

Enter your stack, see which tools cover the same control, and get an estimate of the spend sitting in the overlap.

Runs in your browser

No signup. No network calls. Nothing is stored. Closing this tab discards everything.

Tool	Category	Annual cost (USD)
Tool name	Category	Annual cost
Tool name	Category	Annual cost
Tool name	Category	Annual cost

Name at least two tools to see the overlap analysis. Results export to CSV and print to a single page, both generated in this tab.

Benchmarks behind this tool

Every figure this tool uses for context resolves to a card with a named source, a sample size, and a hand-verification date.

58%

of organizations run more than 25 security tools

Wiz · August 28, 2026

10.9%

of IT spend goes to security, down from 11.9%

IANS Research and Artico Search · August 28, 2026

12.5% vs 4%

market growth against buyer budget growth

Gartner information security forecast · August 28, 2026

How this calculates

Every assumption the model makes, and the things it cannot see. Current as of August 28, 2026.

The analyzer maps each tool you enter to a set of security functions, then reports where two or more tools claim the same function.

How functions are assigned. Each tool category in the picker carries a fixed set of functions drawn from the control language most programs already report against: asset inventory, vulnerability detection, configuration assessment, runtime detection, identity governance, privileged access, secrets management, log collection, detection engineering, case management, data discovery, and posture reporting. The mapping is deliberately coarse. A coarse map that you can argue with beats a precise one you have to trust.

How overlap is scored. A function claimed by exactly one tool is covered. A function claimed by two tools is a partial overlap. A function claimed by three or more is flagged as a consolidation candidate. Nothing is scored as waste automatically, because two tools legitimately covering one function is a normal and often correct architecture.

How redundant spend is estimated. For each function claimed by more than one tool, the analyzer takes the annual cost you entered for each tool, divides it evenly across that tool's functions, and sums the share attributable to duplicated functions beyond the first. This is a deliberately simple model and it will be wrong in both directions: it under-counts when a tool's cost is concentrated in one function, and over-counts when the duplicated function is incidental to both products. Treat the figure as a starting point for a conversation with finance, not as a savings number to commit to.

What it cannot see. Whether a duplicated function is duplicated at acceptable quality, whether one of the two tools is the sensor feeding a detection you depend on, and whether a contract's notice period lets you act this cycle. Those are the questions the murder board exists to answer.

Benchmarks used. The context figures shown alongside your result come from the benchmark cards linked directly under the tool, each carrying its own named source, sample size, and hand-verification date.

Common questions

Does the Security Tool Overlap Analyzer send my stack anywhere?: No. The tool runs entirely as JavaScript in your browser, makes no network requests, and uses no storage APIs. Nothing you enter is transmitted, logged, or persisted, and closing the tab discards everything. There is no account and no email gate.
How accurate is the redundant spend estimate?: Treat the figure as an order-of-magnitude estimate rather than a savings number. The model divides each tool's annual cost evenly across the functions it claims, then sums the duplicated share. That under-counts when cost concentrates in one function and over-counts when the duplicated function is incidental to both products.
Is overlapping security coverage always a problem?: No. Two tools covering one function is often a correct architecture, particularly where a regulator requires separation of duties or where one tool is the sensor another depends on. The analyzer flags overlap for review rather than labelling it waste, and consciously accepted overlap is not sprawl.