Editor’s note: The following is a guest post by Ross Filipek, CISO at managed IT services provider Corsica Technologies.
Buying managed IT and security services shouldn’t be a guessing game. Yet for most midmarket buyers, it has become one. Segmentation between managed services providers, managed security services providers, managed detection and response, and managed extended detection and response has created an alphabet soup of acronyms. Vendors use them interchangeably in marketing and buyers are left signing contracts without a clear picture of what they are actually protected against.
This is not a minor inconvenience. Organizations are under the gun to step up security and resilience as AI-assisted attacks proliferate. They are increasingly turning to partners to outsource security functions they can’t staff internally. This is reflected in the expanding market for managed security services.
This year, global spending on managed cybersecurity services is expected to grow 14.4% to $106 billion, according to Omdia, a Channel Dive sister company. This growth means more overlapping terminology and more room for midmarket buyers to either overpay for coverage they will never use or underpay and leave real gaps in their defenses. Neither outcome is ideal, particularly when budgets are tight and attackers aren’t deterred by confusing procurement processes.
Security service models
An MSP manages IT infrastructure, from network uptime to help desk support and day-to-day operations that keep the lights on. Security is generally bundled in loosely, if at all.
An MSSP takes on security operations. That means managing firewalls, monitoring security tools and handling the alerts those tools generate. An MSSP tells the customer when something is happening.
MDR goes further. A managed detection and response provider adds human-led threat hunting and active response on top of monitoring. When something looks wrong, an MDR team investigates and acts, not just flags.
MXDR extends that model across a broader surface, correlating signals from endpoints, networks, cloud environments and identity systems into a single detection-and-response capability. It is built for organizations with a wider, more complex attack surface to defend.
Each model solves a different problem. They are built for specific risk profiles, and treating them as rungs on the same ladder is misleading.
Risk prioritization
Midmarket organizations often shop by acronym rather than risk. A 200-employee manufacturer with a lean IT team and modest compliance obligations doesn’t need the same coverage as a financial services firm handling regulated data across multiple cloud platforms. Yet vendors often pitch both the same tiered menu of services, dressed up with different acronyms at similar price points.
Before evaluating vendors, an organization should be able to answer a few direct questions.
- What data and systems actually carry the most risk if compromised?
- What compliance frameworks apply, and what do they require of a service provider?
- What security capability already exists in-house?
- Are there gaps in visibility, response or both?
Those answers point toward a model, or more likely a targeted mix of models, that fits the organization's exposure. An organization with strong internal security staff might need an MSP to keep infrastructure running smoothly. An organization with no dedicated security function but significant compliance requirements may need MDR or MXDR to close the gap entirely, not an MSSP that only tells them what they already suspected.
Security scenarios
Picture a 150-employee logistics company running lean on IT staff. A vendor pitches an MXDR package built for an enterprise with a sprawling, hybrid environment across cloud, identity and network layers to defend. The logistics company has neither the cloud footprint nor the identity complexity to justify MXDR. Dashboards will go unread and budget that could have funded better email security or a real incident response plan is gone.
Now flip the scenario. A regional healthcare provider signs with an MSP for network uptime and help desk support, assuming security is part of the package because a salesperson mentioned it in passing. No one is watching for lateral movement or unusual login activity. When a compromised credential surfaces months later, the organization learns the hard way that patching servers and detecting an active intrusion are not the same service.
Both companies spend real money. Neither bought what it needed. The gap between what a buyer thinks a contract covers and what it actually delivers is where breaches happen and budgets get wasted.
Clearing the path
Overbuying is not victimless. Paying for extended detection and response capability an organization's environment doesn't warrant diverts dollars from security awareness training, endpoint hardening and other initiatives.
Underbuying is worse. An organization that assumes its MSP is watching for threats, when the contract covers only uptime and patching, discovers the gap during an incident, not before. That is the scenario that turns into a breach notification instead of a blocked alert.
Midmarket buyers deserve a clearer path. Providers should take the initiative and clearly explain, in plain terms, what they monitor, what triggers a human response, and what happens after hours. If a vendor cannot answer those questions without reaching for another acronym, that's a red flag.
