Market analysts Forrester expect the cost of cybercrime to reach $12 trillion by the end of 2025;enterprises are gearing up and investing heavily in cybersecurity. Yet, despite rising budgets, security leaders’ confidence in detecting and recovering from incidents is declining, says David Morimanno, Field CTO North America at the secure networking product firm Xalient.
A key culprit is security tool sprawl, which quietly erodes visibility, speed, and trust in operations. Industry data underscores this challenge. Kaspersky reports that 74pc of organisations use multi-vendor security stacks. Additionally, 36 per cent of cybersecurity professionals cite excessive complexity, and 43p report compatibility issues. Tool sprawl is now a significant cyber risk.
What tool sprawl is and why it matters
Tool sprawl occurs when organisations deploy too many overlapping or poorly integrated security products without a unified architecture. Tactical responses to audits or compliance often lead to fragmented ecosystems that burden security teams and reduce resilience.
The consequences are substantial. Inconsistent telemetry across tools creates visibility gaps, hindering early threat detection. Operations are hindered as analysts switch between consoles, thereby delaying response times. Policy drift and misconfigurations elevate breach risk. Each new agent or integration adds complexity and expands the attack surface. Tool sprawl, often dismissed as a procurement issue, threatens core security concepts such as least privilege and Zero Trust.
Why sprawl persists
Tool sprawl tends to repeat itself in ways we’ve seen before such as enterprises acquiring tools reactively in response to regulations, breaches, or audits. Mergers and acquisitions often introduce duplicate platforms that remain in use longer than planned. Siloed budgets and decision-making lead different teams to purchase their own security controls, often without coordination or architectural oversight.
The stakes have never been higher. Regulators, from the SEC to European authorities, now demand rapid and transparent incident reporting. Boards expect CISOs and CIOs to clearly prove the value of every security investment. Fragmented ecosystems directly impede organisations’ ability to correlate data, enforce unified policies, and maintain compliance. Tool sprawl is no longer a minor inconvenience; it is a direct obstacle to meeting regulatory mandates and board expectations.
The costs
The impact on human capital is significant. Managing multiple consoles and overlapping tools increases detection and response times, and contributes to analyst error, fatigue and burnout. According to a 2025 ISC2 report, two in five cybersecurity professionals cite tool complexity as a leading cause of burnout. This directly threatens security outcomes, as overstretched analysts are more likely to miss alerts or make configuration errors.
The financial implications are equally sobering. Beyond the obvious licensing fees, organisations absorb hidden expenses in maintaining APIs, integrating disparate platforms, enforcing governance, and training staff. A recurring finding in cybersecurity research is that organisations waste a substantial part of their security budget, with some estimates placing the figure at 20 to 30 per cent, on redundant tools and services. These funds could be used to accelerate strategic initiatives such as Zero Trust adoption, preparation for post-quantum cryptography, or the deployment of AI-driven identity threat detection.
How to break the cycle
Solving tool sprawl requires unwavering commitment to disciplined security architecture. Start by defining a clear end-state security model – Zero Trust with identity as the control plane sets a powerful foundation. Rigorously evaluate every tool purchase against this strategic vision, demanding evidence that it reduces risk or drives operational efficiency.
It is essential to conduct tool rationalisation assessments. To do this, systematically score each product for usage, overlap, cost, and alignment to retire underperforming tools. Update procurement standards to require open integration capabilities, including robust APIs and SIEM connectivity. Consolidation through multi-function platforms, curated vendor ecosystems, and managed services reduces complexity and strengthens security.
Strengthen governance to oversee tool acquisitions. Establish cross-functional review boards to vet proposed purchases for alignment with long-term architecture and risk management goals. Prioritise strategic fit over reactive needs to prevent future tool sprawl.
Broader imperative
Tool sprawl is a systemic threat that undermines cyber resilience. Left unchecked, it amplifies risk, drains resources, and undermines the very frameworks organisations rely on to safeguard trust. Conversely, rationalising and consolidating tools unlocks strategic advantage, which includes faster detection, stronger Zero Trust enforcement, reduced costs, and healthier security teams.
Leaders must view tool rationalisation as a strategic enabler. By moving from reactive procurement to architecture-first security, organisations can reclaim visibility, accelerate response, and build the resilience demanded by regulators, boards, and customers alike.
Tool sprawl is an avoidable issue. By consolidating around a unified control plane and aligning every investment with long-term architectural goals, CIOs and CISOs can transform their security posture, turning consolidation from a budget exercise into the foundation for next-generation cyber resilience.
