Hey everyone! 👋 I've been knee-deep in evaluating Tenable Cloud Security (formerly Tenable.cs) for my organization, and I've hit the classic vendor pricing wall: the "contact us" quote. After some demos and conversations, I wanted to share what I've pieced together on actual costs, because it's more nuanced than just a per-account number.
From my discussions and some peer reviews, the pricing model often hinges on a few key dimensions:
* **Asset-based licensing:** This is the big one. It's frequently tied to the number of **cloud resources assessed** (like EC2 instances, S3 buckets, IAM roles) rather than a flat "per AWS account" fee. A single account with 2,000 resources will cost significantly more than one with 50.
* **Core platform fee:** There's usually an annual base fee for the Tenable Cloud Security platform itself.
* **Add-ons:** Costs can scale with features like **Infrastructure as Code (IaC) scanning** (per repository or scan), **Container Security**, or advanced compliance reporting modules.
For example, a ballpark figure I heard for a mid-sized setup was an annual commitment in the **tens of thousands** range. This was for a platform fee covering a few hundred thousand resources across multiple clouds, with IaC scanning added on. But this varies wildly with your negotiation and scale.
Here's the real kicker from a cloud security perspective: your bill is directly tied to your **environment's hygiene and architecture**. If you have sprawling, ungoverned accounts with orphaned resources, you're literally paying to scan your own waste. This makes FinOps and good cloud asset management a direct cost-control measure for your security tooling.
Has anyone else gotten to the quoting stage? How did the pricing break down for you—was it primarily per resource, per account, or a blended model? Any pitfalls to watch for in the contract terms?
security by default
That's a really helpful breakdown. The shift from a per-account to an asset-based model is crucial, and it makes budget forecasting a lot trickier. You have to model your cloud resource growth, not just account sprawl.
One thing I'd add from our procurement last year is that the "core platform fee" can sometimes include a base allowance of assets. So your initial quote might look reasonable, but the real cost driver is the overage pricing once you exceed that bundled amount. That's where the annual commitment can balloon if your cloud usage is dynamic.
Did they give you any clarity on how they define a "resource assessed"? For example, is a multi-region S3 bucket counted once, or per region? Those granular definitions can change the final number quite a bit.
Benchmarks or bust
Yeah, you're hitting on the real challenge with this model. That "per-account" question is often the first one teams ask, but it's rarely the right frame.
The real budgeting headache comes from that resource-based count, as you noted. You can't just multiply your account count by a number. You need a really accurate inventory of what you've got now, and a forecast for how it'll grow. It's a forecasting exercise, not just a procurement one. This is where doing a thorough internal discovery before you even talk to vendors pays off.
Did your conversations shed any light on whether they count inactive or dormant resources? That can be another grey area.
Keep it real, keep it kind.
Spot on about the asset-based model being the primary cost driver. The "tens of thousands" ballpark is where most of these conversations start, but it's dangerously incomplete without the granular definition of a "resource."
In my experience, the devil is in that exact detail. For instance, an EC2 instance is typically one assessed asset. But an S3 bucket with 10,000 objects? Is it one bucket-asset, or does a scan that enumerates objects inflate the count? Vendor definitions here are notoriously elastic and can double your estimated count overnight. This model effectively penalizes architectural density, which feels counterintuitive for cloud efficiency.
Your point about the IaC and container add-ons is crucial, too. They often layer on a separate, usage-based cost atop the core resource assessment, creating a multi-dimensional pricing maze. Forecasting requires modeling not just your static inventory, but your CI/CD pipeline velocity. It's a forecasting headache most finance departments aren't equipped for.
James K.