The EDR Bake-off Criteria Template (That Security Engineers Actually Use)

Stop rebuilding the same evaluation from scratch. Here's a complete, weighted EDR criteria template — ready to run.

Every EDR evaluation starts the same way. Someone opens a blank spreadsheet, stares at it for twenty minutes, and then pastes in a list of generic criteria from a vendor's own website. Detection. Response. Coverage. Integration. The criteria are real but they're not weighted, not testable, and not specific enough to score meaningfully when three vendors all claim to do the same things. This template exists to fix that. It's the criteria list we'd use if we were running an EDR bake-off from scratch — twelve criteria, suggested weights, what a good score looks like for each, and five POC tasks you can actually run. Copy it. Adjust the weights for your environment. Use it before you invite a single vendor.

The golden rule: criteria before contenders Before you share this template with anyone — your team, your CISO, your vendors — lock it. The weights, the must-haves, the POC tasks. Once a vendor has been in the room, your criteria will unconsciously bend toward their strengths. That's not evaluation; that's a guided tour of their pitch deck. Set everything before the first call. Then don't change it.

The 12 criteria Detection & Response (weight these highest)

1. Detection speed — Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) What you're measuring: how long between a threat occurring and the EDR alerting on it. Suggested weight: Critical (×5) Score 9–10: Sub-60-second MTTD demonstrated in a production-equivalent environment Score 7–8: Under 3 minutes, with caveats about environment or configuration Score 5–6: Detects in lab but not validated in your stack Score 3–4: Vendor claims sub-minute but can't demonstrate it Score 1–2: No clear answer on MTTD
2. Autonomous containment What you're measuring: can the EDR isolate a compromised endpoint without human intervention, and how reliably? Suggested weight: Critical (×5) Score 9–10: Demonstrated autonomous isolation within seconds of detection trigger, with clear audit trail Score 7–8: Automated containment available but requires policy tuning before it's reliable Score 5–6: Containment possible but requires manual trigger Score 3–4: Containment advertised but not demonstrated in POC Score 1–2: No automated containment
3. False positive rate What you're measuring: what percentage of alerts are noise. A tool that fires on everything is worse than one that fires on nothing — alert fatigue kills real detection. Suggested weight: High (×4) Score 9–10: Demonstrably low FP rate in a production-equivalent environment; vendor can show tuning methodology Score 7–8: Acceptable FP rate with clear path to reduce it Score 5–6: High FP rate but vendor has a suppression/tuning workflow Score 3–4: High FP rate, limited tuning options Score 1–2: Vendor can't or won't quantify FP rate
4. Detection coverage — MITRE ATT&CK alignment What you're measuring: which tactics and techniques the tool actually detects, not just claims to. Suggested weight: High (×4) Score 9–10: Independent MITRE ATT&CK evaluation results available; strong coverage across initial access, execution, persistence, lateral movement Score 7–8: Vendor-submitted ATT&CK mapping with evidence; gaps explained Score 5–6: Claims ATT&CK coverage but can't demonstrate specific techniques Score 3–4: Minimal ATT&CK alignment, coverage primarily signature-based Score 1–2: No meaningful ATT&CK mapping

Platform Coverage 5. Linux endpoint support What you're measuring: real Linux coverage, not checkbox Linux coverage. "We support Linux" means nothing if it's kernel module only, or if detection logic is 60% of what Windows gets. Suggested weight: Set based on your environment — High (×4) if you're Linux-heavy, Medium (×3) if mixed, Low (×2) if primarily Windows Score 9–10: Full agent parity on Linux; detection logic equivalent to Windows; kernel module not required Score 7–8: Good Linux coverage with documented gaps Score 5–6: Basic Linux support; agent installs but detection is limited Score 3–4: Linux support is an afterthought; major capability gaps Score 1–2: Linux support is a future roadmap item 6. Cloud workload and container coverage What you're measuring: coverage across AWS/Azure/GCP workloads and container environments. Suggested weight: Medium (×3) to High (×4) depending on your cloud footprint Score 9–10: Native cloud workload protection, Kubernetes coverage, real-time container visibility without requiring privileged mode Score 7–8: Good cloud coverage with documented limitations in specific environments Score 5–6: Cloud agent available but visibility is limited Score 3–4: Limited cloud coverage; mainly on-premise focused Score 1–2: No meaningful cloud or container support 7. macOS endpoint coverage What you're measuring: parity of macOS detection and response vs Windows, and compatibility with your macOS version mix. Suggested weight: Medium (×3) to High (×4) based on device mix Score 9–10: Full detection parity on macOS; tested on your macOS version range; no significant capability gaps vs Windows Score 7–8: Good macOS coverage; gaps documented and acceptable Score 5–6: macOS agent available; detection logic notably lighter than Windows Score 3–4: macOS support is basic Score 1–2: macOS is not meaningfully supported

Integration 8. SIEM integration What you're measuring: how the EDR feeds into your SIEM — log quality, alert fidelity, bidirectional action capability. Suggested weight: High (×4) Score 9–10: Native integration with your SIEM; enriched alerts with full context; bidirectional action (SIEM can trigger EDR response) Score 7–8: Good integration; some manual configuration required; alerts are useful Score 5–6: Integration exists but alert quality is limited; heavy enrichment needed Score 3–4: Generic syslog output only; no meaningful integration Score 1–2: No SIEM integration 9. API and automation support What you're measuring: can your team automate workflows — threat hunting queries, response actions, data export — via API? Suggested weight: Medium (×3) Score 9–10: Full-featured REST API with comprehensive documentation; SOAR integration available; response actions triggerable via API Score 7–8: Good API coverage; most use cases supported Score 5–6: API available but limited; key actions not exposed Score 3–4: Minimal API; limited automation possible Score 1–2: No meaningful API

Operations 10. Time to deploy What you're measuring: how long it actually takes to get agents deployed and operational across your environment — not the vendor's best-case scenario. Suggested weight: Medium (×3) Score 9–10: Full deployment (agent install, policy config, baseline) across 1,000 endpoints in under 4 hours with one SE Score 7–8: Deployment achievable within a day with documented process Score 5–6: Deployment takes 2–3 days; some manual steps Score 3–4: Complex deployment; requires vendor professional services Score 1–2: Deployment is a project, not a task 11. Management console usability What you're measuring: can your team actually use this thing day to day without a certification course? Suggested weight: Low (×2) Score 9–10: Intuitive; core workflows (investigate alert, isolate endpoint, run query) achievable without training in under 10 minutes Score 7–8: Usable with a short onboarding period Score 5–6: Feature-complete but complex; significant learning curve Score 3–4: Difficult to use; key tasks require documentation or support Score 1–2: Requires dedicated training before team can use effectively

Vendor Factors 12. Pricing transparency What you're measuring: do you understand what you're buying, what it costs, and what the renewal looks like — before you sign anything? Suggested weight: Medium (×3) Score 9–10: Per-endpoint pricing clearly stated; tier differences explained; multi-year discount structure transparent; no surprise modules Score 7–8: Pricing model clear; some items require scoping Score 5–6: Pricing requires commercial negotiation before clarity Score 3–4: Pricing is opaque; "contact sales" for everything Score 1–2: No pricing transparency; only quoted under NDA after extensive engagement

The 5 POC tasks These are the tests you run with every contender. Same tasks, same environment, same success criteria. Results go into the score for each relevant criterion. Task 1: Lateral movement simulation Deploy the agent on a test fleet. Simulate lateral movement using a tool like Cobalt Strike or PsExec. Measure MTTD. Observe whether autonomous containment fires. Score against criteria 1 and 2. Success looks like: alert within 60 seconds, containment within 3 minutes, full process tree visible in console. Task 2: Linux detection test Run a known-bad technique (e.g. reverse shell, process injection) on a Linux endpoint. Does the agent detect it? How quickly? How complete is the process tree? Success looks like: detection parity with Windows equivalent. No "we'll investigate why Linux didn't alert" acceptable. Task 3: SIEM integration test Push an alert from the EDR into your SIEM. Check the alert quality — is it enriched? Is the process tree present? Can you trigger an EDR action from the SIEM console? Success looks like: alert appears in SIEM within 2 minutes; context is usable without manual enrichment; action triggerable bidirectionally. Task 4: False positive baseline Run the agent for 5 days in your environment without tuning. Count the alerts. What percentage require investigation? What percentage are obvious noise? Success looks like: FP rate acceptable for your team's capacity. Vendor can demonstrate tuning workflow that reduces noise without reducing signal. Task 5: Deployment speed test Time a clean deployment of the agent across 100 test endpoints. Include policy configuration and baselining. Extrapolate to your full estate. Success looks like: 100 endpoints deployed and operational in under 2 hours with one person.

How to calculate the final score For each criterion: Weighted score = Raw score × Weight multiplier Sum the weighted scores across all twelve criteria. The contender with the highest weighted total wins on paper. Before you finalise: Check any must-have criteria. If a contender scored below 5 on a must-have, they're disqualified regardless of total score. Review the gap analysis. Where did the runner-up outscore the winner? Those gaps are your negotiating points on the final contract.

Running this on pmpa If you want to run this as a structured bake-off rather than a spreadsheet — criteria set before contenders are invited, POC tasks tracked in one workspace, scoring updated as evidence arrives — that's what Picari is built for. Free for security teams. No setup call. → picari.io May the best contender win.