Why Klarvant Namespace Command
Why organisations choose Klarvant.
A fundamentally different approach to digital governance: it removes the deployment friction, it covers the whole process rather than one slice of it, and it now closes the loop with action, so the pairing is discovery, governance, and action, not discovery alone. Here is how Namespace Command compares to the usual alternatives.
Attack surface management shows you what is exposed. Namespace Governance adds verified ownership, validation against your own policies, and continuously collected audit-ready evidence.
Scroll to compare →
| Capability | Namespace Command™ | External Attack Surface Management | Traditional GRC | Point solutions | Third-party risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Process coverage | End to end: discovery through continuous compliance | External discovery and exposure reporting | Partial, with manual steps | A single step | Discovery and scoring only |
| Discovery method | Zero-integration: no agents, API keys, or credentials | External and often domain-seeded in newer tools | Questionnaires and spreadsheets | Agents, scanners, or APIs required | External scanning only |
| Asset coverage | Nine discovery surfaces across the external estate | External assets: DNS, certificates, IP addresses, web | Four to five asset types | Deep in one domain | External assets only |
| Digital twin | Dependency graph with blast-radius impact simulation | Inventory views; dependency simulation not typical | Static reports and spreadsheets | Basic inventory views | Scorecard views |
| AI analysis | 13 specialist AI areas plus the personal advisor, Nora | Risk scoring and prioritisation | Manual analysis | Basic ML risk scoring | Automated scoring |
| Risk model | A to F posture across seven categories (DNS, TLS, Email, Web, Network, Accountability, Defensive), mapped to root causes | Vulnerability severity and exposure ratings | Compliance-based scoring | Single-dimension focus | Vendor-risk scoring |
| Verified ownership | Zone, domain, vendor and service ownership, email-verified | Not included | Attested at process level | Not included | Not included |
| Policy validation | Controls evaluated against your own policies, framework-agnostic engine | Vendor severity taxonomy; not customer policy | Attestation questionnaires | Not included | Not included |
| Audit-ready evidence | Continuously collected, exportable, drift-tracked | Point-in-time exposure reports | Assembled at audit time | Not typically included | Scorecard exports |
| Automation layer | No-code Apps: watch, analyse, and act (Slack, Jira, email, in-app, intelligence feed), with every action in an audit ledger | Alerts and ticket-system integrations | Workflow builders on process, not the estate | Alerting only | Alerting only |
| Remediation | Prioritised remediation queues and root-cause fixes, with Apps acting on findings from inside the platform | Recommendations | Manual workflows | Domain-specific fixes | Recommendations only |
| Time to value | From day 1 | Hours to days for first discovery | 3 to 6 months | 4 to 8 weeks | 1 to 2 weeks |
| M&A due diligence | A target's external estate, no access required | External-only view of a target | Requires target cooperation | Requires target credentials | Good for vendor assessment |
| Deployment | Submit domains, nothing to install | Zero-integration in newer tools; agent-based in older | Complex implementation project | Agent rollout across infrastructure | Minimal setup |
See the difference on your own estate.
We run zero-integration discovery against your namespace, with results from day 1.
Book a demo