Skip to content
Z Zendikt
Vendor trust scorecard

Wiz vendor trust score

Trust scoring is the “is this vendor a fair counterparty” question, deliberately separated from product quality. Six dimensions, dated, sourced where events warrant it.

7.1
/10
mixed
Verdict

Wiz's vendor trust profile is mixed. The dimension scores below show where to negotiate hard and what to monitor across a multi-year contract.

Vendor Trust Score

Is Wiz a trustworthy vendor?

7.1/10
Mixed
Pricing transparency
Published rates; no hidden fees
4.0
Contract fairness
Reasonable terms; no auto-renew traps
6.0
Incident response
How they handle outages and breaches
8.5
Post-acquisition behavior
Customer treatment after M&A or PE
7.0
Executive stability
Leadership churn over 24 months
9.0
Roadmap honesty
Public commitments held
8.0
Trust signal log
  • 2024-05-13
    Wiz secondary tender reportedly valued company at $32B
    Mid-2024 secondary tender confirmed Wiz as the dominant CNAPP private at multi-year peak valuation; positions the company for sustained hiring and product investment.
  • 2024-07-22
    Wiz reportedly declined $23B Google acquisition offer
    Reuters and Wall Street Journal reported in July 2024 that Wiz declined a $23B Google acquisition offer to pursue independent IPO path; talks reportedly resumed in later periods. Pricing-power posture in renewals hardened post-talks per multiple verified buyer reports.
  • 2025-01-15
    Verified buyer reports of 30 to 60 percent renewal-pricing increases
    Multiple verified buyer disclosures through 2024 and 2025 report Wiz renewal pricing increases of 30 to 60 percent at scale, particularly for accounts that grew cloud footprint during the initial term.
Vendor Trust is scored independently of product quality. A great product from an unfair vendor still earns a low trust score.

How to read this score

  • Trust is separate from product quality. A vendor can ship great software and treat customers badly — or vice versa. We score the two independently.
  • 8.0+/10: strong. Few concerns at renewal or procurement.
  • 6.5–7.9: mixed. Negotiate hard on the lowest dimensions; monitor across the contract term.
  • 5.0–6.4: cautious. Add explicit mitigation language to the master agreement.
  • Below 5.0: concerning. Treat this as a contracted-risk evaluation, not a product-fit evaluation.
  • Updates: we re-verify scoring quarterly. Material trust events (acquisitions, breaches, leadership change, hostile contract terms) get logged on the timeline above.

Related editorial

Last updated 2026-05-10. Scoring methodology: editorial standards. Disagree? Tell us.