Skip to main content
Back to Articles

Report: Orca vs Upwind CNAPP

5 min read
11/13/2025
Regenerate

Summary

Two voices are in the room: one arguing for broad, fast coverage with minimal ops (Orca), and the other demanding deep runtime fidelity and active response (Upwind). Both can be "better" depending on priorities. This report walks through what each vendor promises, where those promises meet reality, and a practical recommendation for most organizations.

The debate (a dialogue)

"Orca is the low‑friction, wide‑visibility CNAPP — get full cloud coverage fast," says the Orca advocate. Orca's marketing and case studies emphasize an agentless SideScanning™ approach that claims near‑complete visibility without impacting workload performance (see Orca datasheets and product pages) (Orca platform).

"Upwind gives you kernel‑level, runtime fidelity — you see what actually happens on the host," counters the Upwind advocate. Upwind focuses on eBPF‑based sensors for deep runtime telemetry and active response, later adding agentless scanners to fill coverage gaps (Upwind CNAPP).

What each side can actually deliver

Orca: what it reliably delivers

  • Agentless SideScanning that extracts runtime block storage and cloud metadata to surface vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, secrets, and data risks without installing agents. Orca claims rapid onboarding and a unified data model combining CSPM, CWPP, CIEM and DSPM (Orca product brief).
  • Strong Cloud→Dev tracing: production findings mapped back to code and owner to speed remediation (Orca Cloud-to-Dev announcement).
  • Good for teams needing broad posture coverage and fast time‑to‑value. Orca also published case studies showing faster onboarding and reduced remediation effort (Orca case studies).

"Orca's agentless design enables rapid deployment and eliminates performance impacts associated with traditional agent-based solutions... provides '100% coverage and visibility' across cloud assets." (Orca platform overview)

Where Orca can struggle (real world limits)

  • Agentless visibility depends on cloud provider APIs; API changes or outages can create temporary coverage gaps (Orca acknowledges API dependence) (Orca API challenges whitepaper).
  • Some users report high alert volumes and a complex UI, which can cause alert fatigue if not tuned (Orca alert fatigue report and reviews) (Orca alert fatigue report).

Upwind: what it reliably delivers

  • eBPF‑based sensors that collect kernel/host telemetry (processes, network, files) for high‑fidelity runtime detection and response; good at lateral movement, in‑memory, and process behavior anomalies (Upwind sensors docs).
  • Active response capabilities: isolate workloads, block malicious traffic, plus agentless cloud scanners to expand coverage where agents cannot be used (Upwind press release).

"Upwind’s Agentless Cloud Scanners come as a powerful addition to our leading eBPF-based sensor, providing unified, comprehensive coverage for your infrastructure and applications." (Upwind announcement)

Where Upwind can struggle (real world limits)

  • Agent deployment complexity: privileged Kubernetes policies, air‑gapped environments, and some serverless scenarios complicate or prevent sensor deployment; agents can add resource overhead on heavy I/O hosts (Upwind sensor troubleshooting).
  • Agentless scanners lack full runtime context, so they can miss post‑compromise lateral movement unless combined with sensors.
  • As with many CNAPPs, alert volume and integration/automation maturity affect operational usefulness.

Direct comparison by capability

  • Asset discovery & breadth: Orca generally faster and lower friction (agentless); Upwind added agentless scanners but historically agent requirements mean more planning.
  • Vulnerability management & prioritization: Orca strong at risk context and attack path prioritization; Upwind provides runtime signals to improve prioritization for active threats.
  • Runtime protection & detection: Upwind (eBPF sensors) wins for kernel/host‑level fidelity; Orca added runtime sensors (eBPF) to its stack but historically led with agentless.
  • IaC/Shift‑Left: Orca has mature Cloud→Dev workflows and IaC scanning integrations; Upwind emphasizes runtime but has shift‑left capabilities as well.
  • Ease of deployment & ops: Orca typically lower ops friction; Upwind requires sensor deployment effort but yields deeper telemetry.
  • Pricing & TCO: variable — agented approaches can have different cost/tco dynamics (operational cost for deployment vs broader subscription licensing). Run vendor POC pricing for your estate.

Practical recommendation (what "generally better" means)

  • For most organizations seeking a single CNAPP to quickly reduce cloud posture risk with minimal ops change: Orca is generally a better fit because of agentless onboarding, unified CNAPP coverage and Cloud→Dev workflows.
  • For organizations where live runtime fidelity and active blocking are critical (advanced detection & response, forensic runtime telemetry): Upwind is generally better, provided you can deploy sensors where they are needed.
  • Many organizations adopt both patterns: an agentless CNAPP for broad posture + selective deployment of eBPF sensors for high‑value hosts and workloads.

Decision checklist & next steps

  1. Inventory: which clouds, serverless usage, air‑gapped hosts, compliance needs.
  2. Pilot: test both on a representative subset (measure visibility, false positives, onboarding time, performance impact). Measure time‑to‑value.
  3. Tune: prioritize alerts, integrate with SOAR/SIEM, map responsibilities between cloud teams and security.

Sources & notable links

Inline navigation links you can use while reading:

If you want, I can now:

  • Produce a 1‑page decision matrix specific to your environment, or
  • Draft a 2‑week POC plan that compares Orca vs Upwind against your critical workloads (with success metrics).

Which would you like next?

Explore Further