Are you more secure today than you were a year ago?
I have been asking IT and security leaders that question all year. The answers are almost never yes. Most of the time, they are not even "I don't know." They are some version of "more tools than ever, and somehow less sure."
That answer is the reason we launched a new campaign.
For the past several years, I have watched the security industry sell more. Gartner puts the average enterprise at 45 cybersecurity tools, drawn from a market of more than 3,000 vendors. Global spending on information security crossed $213 billion in 2025 and is on pace to hit $240 billion next year.
Another product. Another dashboard. Another AI assistant. Another agent to deploy. Every new threat spawns a new tool. Every new tool spawns a new dashboard. Every dashboard tells a slightly different version of the truth.
The teams running security are doing the work. They are buying the products the analysts told them to buy. They are renewing the contracts the auditors told them to keep. They are deploying agents on the endpoints they can reach.
And still, when I ask if they feel more secure, the answer is the one above.
This is the pattern I have been seeing. It is not that security leaders are doing their jobs poorly. It is that the standard playbook the category has been selling for the last decade was built for a smaller, simpler attack surface. The environment has changed. The playbook has not.
The environment that security teams defend today bears little resemblance to the one most security platforms were built for. The endpoint count has multiplied. The categories have multiplied with it. OT. IoT. Third-party SaaS apps. AI tools that employees adopted without asking. Each one is an attack surface, and most of them are outside the reach of agent-based tools that need to be installed on the device.
Meanwhile, the teams running security have not grown at the same rate. ISC2 reports that 67% of organizations face cybersecurity staffing shortages. Most of the security leaders I talk to are running on fewer people than they need, working with budgets set when the threat surface was a fraction of what it is now.
So the industry's answer has been to add. Add another tool. Add another dashboard. Add another agent. Add another AI assistant that promises to make sense of all the noise. The 2025 SANS Detection and Response Survey reports that 73% of security teams now name false positives as their top detection challenge. The noise is winning.
That is common security. It is what most of the industry is selling. It is what most security teams are buying.
It is also why my conversations almost never end with anyone feeling more secure.
When you see the same pattern in every conversation, you start to wonder whether the question is wrong.
Every security pitch I see asks some version of how can we add more to your stack? The right question is the inverse. Why are we still adding when adding is not making anyone safer?
So we asked: Why settle for common security?
That is the question we put at the center of our new campaign. Not because it is clever, although I think it is. Because it is the question I keep wanting to ask in every conversation, and I think it is the question security leaders are quietly asking themselves.
The campaign illustrates the difference between common and uncommon security. Agentless or agent-heavy? Your ecosystem or theirs? AI that detects or AI that decides? The point is not the questions individually. The point is the cumulative weight of asking them all at once, and for a security leader looking at their current stack to reflect upon.
This is not a campaign about UncommonX. It is a campaign about the industry. But the reason we feel entitled to ask the question is that we have spent a decade building the answer.
UncommonX is agentless, which means we see what agent-based tools cannot. We are vendor-agnostic, which means we work with whatever you already run. We use AI to decide, not just detect, which means our customers get answers rather than another queue of alerts. We are one platform, one price, and we go live in days.
Here is what that looks like in practice. A hospitality customer came to us with rising IT and cybersecurity costs and a fragmented stack. Within 60 days, our agentless discovery uncovered enough EDR overlap, firewall overcapacity, and underused SaaS to retire more than $500,000 in annual spending. They reduced their IT and cybersecurity budget by nearly 20 percent. Their security posture improved at the same time.
A regional financial services customer faced the same pattern: limited staff, rising compliance demands, and tool sprawl. They consolidated their MDR, SIEM, separate storage, and vulnerability management subscriptions into UncommonX. More than $520,000 in annual savings. Stronger security. One platform doing the work of several.
Our customers do not add UncommonX to their stack. They consolidate their stack into UncommonX.
You can read more about each of those case studies here. The campaign will highlight them. The reason I am writing this post is to say what the campaign is for.
It is for the IT and security leader who keeps adding tools and feeling less safe. It is for the IT and security leader who suspects the playbook the industry has handed them doesn’t reflect the current environment. It is for the IT and security leader who is ready to ask, why am I settling for common security?
If that is you, let us show you what’s now possible. Book a demo today.