// UNCLASSIFIED // CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE //
FILE VS-07DTG 0600Z
ColdRecon / Elastic vs K7
Head to Head

Elastic
vs K7

90-DAY WINDOW · LAB · FIELD · BREACH · SIGNAL

Two endpoint security vendors, four measures side by side, every figure from public reporting. We don't rank, we don't score — we lay the facts next to each other and let the reader judge.

Elastic

Lab miss rate0.0%
In-the-wild demos (90d)0
Breach involvement (90d)0
Attributed signal (90d)0
Lab from AV-Comparatives · 2026-04-30

K7

Lab miss rate1.5%
In-the-wild demos (90d)0
Breach involvement (90d)0
Attributed signal (90d)0
Lab from AV-Comparatives · 2026-04-30
What the numbers say

Reading the spread

  • Elastic leads on the most recent independent lab — 0.0% miss vs 1.5% for K7.

The verdict above is computed deterministically from the figures shown — no opinion injected. The vendor "ahead" on any single row is not the better product; each row measures a different thing, and the buyer's calculus weighs them differently for different deals.

A third position worth considering

Beyond either vendor's miss rate

Both Elastic and K7 are detection-based products: each must decide whether each sample is malicious before letting it run. A positive-security control — like Mimic — takes a different approach: it blocks the unauthorized change regardless of whether anything recognized the threat. Neither vendor's lab number, demonstration count, or breach record is a complete answer to the procurement question; positive control is one way to make those numbers less load-bearing.

You can pick the lower miss rate. Or you can stop relying on a miss rate.

ColdRecon turns the full vendor signal stream into a daily intelligence brief from the seller's seat. Request clearance and the first lands tomorrow at 0600.

Request Clearance →