- BFSIBanking, Financial Services & Insurance
- HealthcareComing soon
- ManufacturingComing soon
- Retail & E-CommerceComing soon
Cyber GRC
A board cannot weigh a CVSS score against a credit risk — MetricStream Cyber GRC takes what your security tools already find and scores it on the enterprise scale — so cyber stops arriving as a separate deck the board notes and moves past.
Buy through TechBag
Same software. Better outcome — at a lower cost.
How it’s rated
Full scoreboard ↓Quick answer
The MetricStream platform family
This page covers Cyber GRC — the governance layer. The rest of the platform:
Quick facts
30-second orientation- Product
- Cyber GRC — the governance layer
- Inside it
- Cyber Risk, Cyber Compliance, Cyber Policy, Vendor Risk
- The job
- Translate control gaps into board-readable risk
- Honest scope
- It consumes findings — it does not detect them
- Not a replacement
- Your SIEM, scanner and EDR stay exactly where they are
- Where it fits
- Above the tooling, feeding the enterprise register
- Pricing
- Quote-only — no published price
- In India via
- TechBag — INR/GST, scoping and support
Understand cyber GRC before you buy it
Most product pages skip this. We start here — so you buy a capability, not a buzzword.
What is MetricStream Cyber GRC?
The governance layer above your security stack — findings mapped to controls, given service context, and scored on the same scale as every other enterprise risk.
A separate security deck vs one register — the honest table
What consolidation actually replaces, dimension by dimension.
| Dimension | A security deck in its own language | Cyber GRC (MetricStream) |
|---|---|---|
| Cyber reporting | A separate deck in its own language | Entries on the enterprise register |
| Scoring | Severity ratings nobody can compare | The same scale as every other risk |
| Prioritisation | Defended in a meeting | A documented consequence of service context |
| Cyber policy | Published and unread | Approved, attested, versioned |
| What it needs | — | Integrations; an unconnected tool is invisible |
| What it is NOT | — | Not detection; your stack still does that |
It does NOT detect anything. Your SIEM, scanner and EDR stay exactly where they are. And if third-party risk is the whole programme, compare OneTrust — a Gartner MQ Leader for that market.
The five pieces of the platform
Vendors love diagrams; buyers need to know what they’re actually operating. Here’s the whole platform, demystified.
Ingest from the security stack
Vulnerability results, control test outcomes and configuration findings come in from the scanners, SIEM and posture tools you already run. The module's value is entirely downstream of that feed, so the integrations are the first thing to scope.
Map findings to controls
A finding is technical; a control gap is governable. Mapping vulnerability output to the control it undermines is what lets a security issue appear on the same register as a credit or conduct risk, in language the board already reads.
Quantify and rank
Cyber exposure scored on the enterprise scale rather than a security-only severity rating. A board cannot weigh a CVSS distribution against operational risk; it can weigh two entries scored the same way.
Cyber policy and vendor risk
IT and cyber policies drafted, approved and attested, and vendor risk assessed on the same engine. Note TechBag also sells OneTrust for third-party risk, a Gartner MQ Leader for that specific market — worth comparing if vendor risk is the main driver.
One telemetry fabric across endpoint, cloud, and network — threats correlated once, not chased console to console.
Six capabilities. Ingest, map, score.
MetricStream Cyber GRC governs what your security stack finds — control mapping, scoring and the portfolio, and paired with the human firewall.
Take the output you already generate
Vulnerability, configuration and control-test results from the tools you run. Scope these integrations first — everything here is downstream of the feed, and an unconnected tool is invisible.
A finding on what, exactly
The same vulnerability on a test box and on a payments system are different risks. Context from the enterprise register is what makes prioritisation defensible rather than arbitrary.
Findings become control gaps
Technical output mapped to the control it undermines, so a security issue can sit on the enterprise register beside credit and conduct risk rather than in a separate report nobody reads.
One scale, comparable exposure
Scored on the enterprise scale rather than a security-only severity. That is what lets a board weigh cyber against everything else instead of receiving it as a separate language.
Written, approved, attested
IT and cyber policies through the same lifecycle as every other policy, with attestation by the people bound. An unattested security policy is a document rather than a control.
Third parties on the same engine
Vendor assessments run alongside cyber risk. If third-party risk is your primary driver, compare against OneTrust — a Gartner MQ Leader for that market specifically, which TechBag also sells.
Watch MetricStream in action
Cyber GRC trends, and the single-controls approach behind them.
What's Next in Cyber Risk — Top Cyber GRC Trends
Where cyber risk governance is heading.
A Single Controls Approach for Cyber Compliance and Resilience
One control set across cyber compliance and resilience.
The Path to Intelligent GRC
From reactive oversight to proactive risk.
Want a live, India-context walkthrough for your environment?
Book a guided demo →Your tools find it. This makes it governable.
Here’s what genuinely sets it apart — and exactly where it stops.
The board cannot weigh a CVSS score
Security teams produce vulnerability counts, severity distributions and control test results. Boards weigh exposures against each other — this cyber risk against that credit risk against a conduct issue — and they can only do that when everything is scored on one scale in one register. The gap between those two languages is why cyber reporting so often arrives as a separate deck that gets noted rather than acted on. This module's entire purpose is the translation: a finding becomes a control gap, a control gap becomes a scored risk on the enterprise register, and a board decision about it becomes comparable to every other risk decision. That is unglamorous plumbing and it is what turns security reporting into governance.
It consumes findings — it does not detect them
This is the boundary that most needs stating early, because a CISO asking for cyber risk visibility and a CISO asking for detection are asking for different products, and the words sound similar in a procurement document. Cyber GRC sits above your security stack. It reads what your scanners, SIEM, posture tools and control tests produce, and it governs that output. It does not scan, alert, hunt or respond, and buying it expecting any of those leads to an expensive disappointment. The corollary matters too: because everything here is downstream of the feed, a security tool nobody integrated is a tool the governance layer cannot see, so the integration list is the first thing to scope rather than the last.
Context is what makes prioritisation defensible
The same vulnerability on a test server and on a payments system are not the same risk, and every security team knows it — but proving the distinction to an auditor requires the asset and service context to be recorded somewhere they can see. Because Cyber GRC reads the enterprise register, that context is already there: which service the asset supports, how critical the service is, which risks depend on it. Prioritisation then stops being a judgement call defended in a meeting and becomes a documented consequence of information the organisation already holds. That is worth more at inspection than it sounds, because 'we fixed the important ones first' is a much weaker answer than showing why these were the important ones.
On vendor risk, compare honestly
This line includes Vendor Risk Management, and it works — assessments run on the same engine as everything else, which is a real advantage if your GRC already lives here. But TechBag also sells OneTrust Third-Party Management, which Gartner named a LEADER in the 2026 Magic Quadrant for Third-Party Risk Management Tools for Assurance Leaders, and pretending the two are equivalent on that specific market would misrepresent the evidence. The honest framing: if vendor risk is one obligation inside a wider GRC programme running on MetricStream, use this. If third-party risk is the programme, look at OneTrust first. TechBag will scope both rather than defend whichever is easier to sell.
The numbers behind the platform
What your cyber GRC rollout looks like
Settle what you are buying
Governance, not detection. If anyone in the room expects this to find threats, resolve that before the demo — it is the most common mis-scope in the category.
List the feeds
Which scanners, SIEM and posture tools will send findings? Everything here is downstream of that list, and an unconnected tool is invisible.
Map findings to controls
Technical output to the control it undermines. This is the translation that lets cyber sit on the same register as credit and conduct risk.
Score on the enterprise scale
Not a security-only severity. The point is comparability — a board weighing cyber against everything else in one language.
Wire policy attestation
Cyber policies through the same approval and attestation lifecycle as everything else. An unattested policy is a document, not a control.
Review the feed coverage
New tools appear; unconnected ones stay invisible. Re-check integration coverage on a schedule rather than after an incident finds the gap.
The review scoreboard
Modelled on Gartner Peer Insights structure. *Counts and breakdowns are illustrative pending verified review collection.
Quick poll — what’s driving your evaluation?
Talk to an advisor“Our cyber reporting used to be a separate deck the board noted and moved past. Scoring it on the enterprise scale is the reason it now gets decisions.”
“Being able to show WHY we prioritised those vulnerabilities — which service, which risk — changed the audit conversation entirely.”
“Scope the integrations first. Everything here depends on the feed, and a tool we had not connected was simply invisible to the governance layer.”
“We use the vendor risk piece because our GRC already runs here. If third-party risk had been the whole project we would have looked at a specialist.”
Where everyone sits — the grids
Analyst firms bury this view behind paywalls, and G2 retired its Grid. So here’s TechBag’s synthesis of the cyber GRC market — tap any vendor to see why it sits where it does.
TechBag Cyber GRC Grid
Execution strength vs product vision — the classic market map, minus the paywall.
Translation into board-readable risk.
Detection × Portfolio Integration
The grid nobody publishes — depth of translation into business risk vs breadth across the GRC functions.
Deep translation, reading the enterprise register.
Positions are TechBag’s illustrative synthesis of public review-platform data and vendor documentation — not a reproduction of any analyst graphic. Verify before relying on it.
Cyber GRC vs the alternatives
Against your security stack (a different job entirely), a privacy-first platform, and the separate deck it replaces.
| Dimension | MetricStream Cyber GRC | Your security stack | OneTrust | A separate deck |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What it does | Governs findings | Detects | Privacy-first GRC | Reports |
| Scored comparably to other risk | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Detects threats | No — by design | Yes | No | No |
| Vendor risk depth | Included | n/a | Gartner MQ Leader | n/a |
| Depends on integrations | Entirely | n/a | Yes | n/a |
| Published pricing | Quote-only | Varies | Quote-only | Free |
Which cybersecurity approach fits you?
Honest fit signals — because the fastest way to lose your trust is to pretend one product wins every scenario.
Choose MetricStream Cyber GRC if…
- ✓Cyber reporting arrives as a separate deck the board notes rather than acts on
- ✓You need to SHOW why those vulnerabilities were prioritised, using service context an auditor can see
- ✓Risk and compliance already run here, so cyber lands on the register everything else uses
- ✓You have the integrations, or will scope them — everything here is downstream of the feed
Look elsewhere if…
- ✓You need detection — that is your SIEM, scanner and EDR, and this replaces none of them
- ✓Third-party risk is the whole programme — OneTrust is a Gartner MQ Leader for that market and TechBag sells it
- ✓Your security tooling cannot export findings in a form a governance layer can consume
Do not expect…
- ✓It to find anything — it governs what your tools already found
- ✓Visibility of a tool nobody integrated; an unconnected source is simply absent
- ✓A Gartner Magic Quadrant claim; MetricStream makes none — cite Chartis #1 in Enterprise GRC
What does untranslated cyber risk cost you?
Drag the sliders (findings a month; IT-hour cost as a loaded rate). Estimates model the effort of translating security output into board-readable risk by hand each cycle. Illustrative.
Loaded cost = salary + overheads per productive hour. Illustrative only — your TechBag quote models your actual environment and modules.
Three ways to consume it
Quote-only — MetricStream publishes no price. TechBag scopes the integrations and the register work, then quotes in INR with GST.
Cyber GRC
Best when risk already runs here
- Findings mapped to the controls they break
- Scored on the enterprise scale, not CVSS
- Cyber policy attested like any other
+ Platform add-ons
Best for a broader rollout
- Scoped to your estate
- Add-on modules as needed
- Phased, right-sized deployment
+ the wider platform
Best across GRC functions
- Cyber lands on the register everything uses
- Service context makes prioritisation defensible
- One control library across all functions
Buy it for less — TechBag pricing beats list
Whatever the list prices above, TechBag negotiates a significantly better deal — with GST-compliant INR invoicing and local support. Ask us for your discounted quote.
Get an India-ready quote
Tell us your requirements and current tools — we’ll model it against what you spend today.
The 8 questions to ask every vendor
Take this into your next vendor call — including ours.
Does anyone expect this to DETECT threats? It does not. Settle that before the demo.
Which security tools will actually send findings? An unconnected tool is invisible to the governance layer.
Can your vulnerability output be mapped to the controls it undermines? That is the translation being bought.
Will cyber be scored on the enterprise scale? A security-only severity is not comparable at board level.
Does the register hold which service an asset supports? That is what makes prioritisation defensible.
Is third-party risk the main driver? If so, compare OneTrust — a Gartner MQ Leader for that market.
Are cyber policies attested by the people bound, with versions kept?
Can you approve without a list price? There is none. Scope the integration effort too.
Questions buyers ask
Ready to evaluate MetricStream Cyber GRC?
Scope the integration list first — everything here is downstream of the feed — or let a TechBag advisor settle whether you actually need governance or detection.
Stats, ratings, review counts and pricing are illustrative and sourced from public materials; verify before purchase.