Testing Value Compounds Through Events
Organizations typically begin with a single testing need. Over time, independent testing becomes an embedded capability that accelerates and informs security technology decisions.
Below is a representative example of how enterprises use SE Labs testing through ATA over time. These events occur repeatedly over time. Independent testing can be applied whenever one of these decision points arises.
1. Renewal Pricing Pressure Creates Comparative Data Needs
Trigger:
A major security renewal includes a proposed price increase.
Action:
The organization purchases comparative testing data relevant to the product category.
Outcome:
Independent performance data is used to challenge pricing assumptions
The renewal is renegotiated using evidence rather than vendor claims
In many cases, organizations preserve or improve commercial terms (for example, avoiding or reducing an ~8% increase)
2. Full Stack Testing Identifies Gaps and Redundant Spend
Trigger:
Leadership requests a clearer understanding of overall security effectiveness.
Action:
SE Labs tests the organization’s security stack against relevant real-world threats.
Outcome:
Underperforming or redundant controls are identified
Unnecessary spend (often ~5%) is reduced
Budget is reallocated to address a verified protection gap
A defensible analysis is shared with executive leadership or the board
All test samples, attack paths, and results are documented and reproducible within the SE Labs environment.
5. New Technology Is Deployed Using Proven Configurations
Trigger:
A new security product is selected to close an identified gap.
Action:
SE Labs provides the client with the testing configurations provided by the vendor for its latest round of testing (not publicly available or shared by others)
Outcome:
Deployment aligns with a configuration already proven under attack
Implementation time is reduced (often saving 6–9 months of tuning)
The organization avoids a prolonged period of underperforming protection
Operational constraints are incorporated into the vendor recommended configurations, and any resulting gaps are explicitly discussed and tested.
3. Budget Requests Are Supported by Independent Validation
Trigger:
A new security capability is required, and leadership requests justification for additional spend.
Action:
Independent SE Labs testing is used to validate:
That a real protection gap exists
That the proposed product meaningfully addresses that gap
How alternatives compare under the same conditions
Outcome:
Budget requests are supported by third-party evidence, not vendor claims
External stakeholders (finance, procurement, audit) align faster
Competing options can be evaluated in parallel, accelerating decisions
This reduces friction and shortens approval cycles for new security investments.
4. Procurement-Compliant Shortlisting Reduces POC Burden
Trigger:
Procurement or compliance requirements mandate evaluating multiple vendors, even when security teams have already narrowed the list of ideal products.
Action:
Existing SE Labs comparative testing data is used to identify the most relevant products
Often existing SE Labs data can cover all of or most of a POC requirement when the product is a mismatch
SE Labs’ existing testing infrastructure and independent process accelerate evaluation of shortlisted products
Outcome:
The most appropriate and more products can enter POCs when combined with SE Labs capabilities
POC timelines are shortened while often increasing rigor
Security teams spend less time running redundant evaluations and more time on higher-value initiatives
This approach preserves compliance requirements while materially reducing operational burden.
6. Detection Engineering Is Informed by Testing Forensics
Trigger:
The new product is live, and internal teams want to improve detection quality.
Action:
SE Labs testing forensics are shared with the customer.
Outcome:
Detection engineering teams use real attack data to improve signal quality
Threat techniques and failure modes observed in testing inform SOC workflows
Detection capability improves without waiting for production incidents
7. Emerging Threats Are Independently Validated
Trigger:
A new, relevant threat actor or attack technique emerges.
Action:
SE Labs tests the client’s current security stack against the new threat.
Outcome:
The organization receives independent confirmation of readiness—or evidence of a gap
A concise analysis is shared with executive leadership
Forensics are shared with threat engineering to enable them to recognize the threat
8. Continuous Retesting Maintains Confidence Over Time
Trigger:
A new quarter or testing cycle begins.
Action:
SE Labs retests the existing security stack against current threats.
Outcome:
Changes in vendor detection are validated independently, since old threats are not necessarily detected into the future
The organization confirms protection remains effective, or make adjustments as needed
Confidence the security stack is well maintained is independently verified
9. Post-Acquisition Security Stack Validation And Consolidation
Trigger:
An acquisition introduces a second security stack with unknown risk.
Action:
SE Labs evaluates the inherited environment, testing:
The effectiveness of the acquired security stack
Overlaps, gaps, and incompatibilities
Risk implications as parts of the stack are merged or remain independent
Outcome:
Leadership receives an independent assessment of inherited risk
Integration decisions are guided by data rather than assumptions
Testing supports a phased, lower-risk consolidation strategy
This enables faster post-acquisition decisions while reducing operational and security risk.
