One correlated view across the tools you already bought.
CINQUE replaces nothing. It reads what your existing tools already produce and shows you, from your own environment, which of them answer which questions.
The stack grew one question at a time.
Each tool was bought to answer a question that was urgent that quarter, and each one answers it correctly. What nobody owns is the view across them, so the console count rises, the overlap is invisible, and the budget conversation runs on vendor claims instead of on your own data.
Every console is right and none is sufficient
Each tool is correct about its own slice and blind to every other.
Overlap is invisible from inside a console
Two tools answering the same question is only visible from a layer above both.
Coverage is assumed
The gaps between tools are where attack surface you own lives, and they are nobody's dashboard.
The budget case runs on somebody else's numbers
A renewal defended with vendor benchmarks is a renewal defended with vendor benchmarks.
What a correlation layer gives the decision.
The questions that come up at renewal.
Console count: the average security organization runs 10.9 of them (Microsoft and Omdia, State of the SOC 2026).
What CINQUE does not do.
Stated plainly, so nobody is surprised in month two.
- CINQUE does not recommend removing a tool, and it does not position against the technologies or managed providers you already run. What it gives you is the evidence to make that call yourself.
- Automated gap and overlap analysis is on the roadmap and is not in the product today. What exists now is the correlated view and the provenance that makes the analysis possible.
- We make no claim about cost savings. If a number like that ends up in your business case, it should be yours.
Same platform, different question.
All use cases · What is Unified Security Posture Observability?