The claim
Five portcos · $1.1M to $5.7M modeledFAIR-aligned annual loss per company, 10,000 Monte Carlo runs per exposure, stated as a P10–P90 range. Never a point guess.
Product preview: Portfolio Command dashboard showing portfolio cyber loss exposure, company rollup, and funding-order decisions for PE operating partners. Illustrative demo data, not a customer outcome.
Financial cyber exposure for PE portfolios
Know which portfolio company carries the greatest financial cyber exposure. And what to fund first.
Valty turns the security findings you already have into a comparable EBITDA-impacting cyber loss-exposure range, net of insurance. The assumptions, evidence lineage, and confidence range behind every number stay visible.
Every number shows its work.
Portfolio Command
Highest exposure is not always the first check you write. Valty makes both decisions explicit.
See where financial cyber exposure is concentrated, then allocate a constrained budget to the combination of fixes that removes the most modeled exposure.
The evidence
Every figure carries its sourceControls verified by API against the tools each portco already runs, with freshness shown: MFA coverage 1 day old, attack surface 3 days old.
The decision
$538K of $550K · $6.8M reducedA FUND / NEXT / HOLD order under an approved budget cap. The next fix waits for capacity; holds wait for evidence. Not a valuation.
Inspect the assumptions
Open the worked example before you apply.
Portfolio Command ranked the funding order. This step is different: inspect the assumptions, evidence lineage, confidence range, and blocked claims behind that decision — ungated, labeled illustrative, not a second portfolio table pitch.
Assumptions
Every modeled figure lists the inputs and defaults it depends on — inspect before you fund.
Evidence
Lineage and freshness sit next to the claim so stale or missing proof cannot hide.
Confidence
P10–P90 ranges replace false precision; blocked claims stay blocked until evidence lands.
Limits
Illustrative demo data is labeled as such — not a customer portfolio or customer outcome.
See the worked example
Ungated · methods note attached.
EBITDA Bridge
Watch cyber risk show up in the operating number.
See how modeled cyber exposure adjusts reported EBITDA. This illustrative $400M revenue manufacturer shows a $4–7M bridge (base case $5.4M) from reported to adjusted EBITDA, modeled with FAIR and 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Sensitivity, not a valuation opinion.
Starting
$42.0M
Reported EBITDA
RNSMRansomware exposure−$1.8M
DBRCData breach liability−$2.1M
CMPLCompliance penalties−$0.9M
INTRBusiness interruption−$1.4M
INSRInsurance recovery+$0.8M
Adjusted
$36.6M
After cyber risk · $35–38M range
The board asks for risk in dollars. Heatmaps cannot answer.
More data does not move an IC memo.
A dollar number does.
Your CISO has controls, alerts, and heatmaps. You still do not have a number you can put into an IC memo.
- Heatmaps
Cannot answer the IC funding question when the board asks for cyber risk in dollars.
Valty method - $4.7M
Average industry cost of a data breach (IBM). Most boards still cannot quantify their own exposure.
IBM 2024 - P10–P90
Every modeled figure ships as a range with method and source, not a single point the board cannot challenge.
Valty method
Independent research
The operating problem is already measured.
Independent research already measures cyber risk as deal and hold-period impact. Directors are asking management to report it in terms the business can act on.
Private equity transaction risk
“Cybersecurity has evolved into a material transaction risk, becoming a direct threat to deal flow and valuation in private equity.”
Kroll surveyed 325 private equity executives. Its February 2026 report found $2.1 million in average financial impact per incident and hold-period disruption at 80% of firms.
Dave Burg, Global Group Head of Cyber and Data Resilience at Kroll
Kroll · Cyber Risk at Scale · February 2026 (opens in a new tab)From diligence to action
“[Diligence observations] must get out of the reports and spreadsheets and onto the agenda.”
Benjamin Eason, Managing Director of Cyber at Apollo Global Management
as quoted by EY · March 2023 (opens in a new tab)Board reporting
57%
of private-company directors rated improving the quality of management’s cyber-risk reporting very or extremely important in the coming year.
NACD · Principle Five · April 2026 · private-company director sample n=85 (opens in a new tab)Independent industry sources, cited for context. No affiliation, endorsement, or customer relationship with any organization named above is implied. Valty's own method, range, and claim boundary sit with each modeled dollar on this page.
Design-partner paths
Three design-partner paths. Pick the one that matches the decision.
Catalog-only modules stay on the capability map. These three lanes are the current design-partner motion, and each CTA opens a concrete next step — not a generic early-access ask.
Design partner · Portfolio Operations
Portfolio Command
Rank which portco carries the most financial cyber exposure and what to fund first under a constrained budget.
Design partner · Cyber Risk Quantification
Financial risk review
FAIR-aligned Monte Carlo exposure with method, range, and assumptions visible before anyone acts on the number.
Design partner · Trust / Proof Pack
Inspectable proof
Open the ungated sample Proof Pack: assumptions, evidence lineage, confidence, and blocked claims.
Design partnership
Bring one portfolio decision.
Leave with a defensible funding order.
Engagement modelCapacity-capped
Capacity-capped, founder-led. Not a public seat counter.
Adil Karam · Founder & CEO
You’ll work directly with me. Every application gets a personal reply. LinkedIn
Prefer email? partner@valty.ai
What you get
- A scoped portfolio exposure model and constrained-budget funding order
- A review of the assumptions, confidence ranges, and evidence gaps behind it
- A claim-reviewed Proof Pack you can circulate internally
What we get
- Structured feedback at the model review and Proof Pack review
- Permission to use anonymized learnings only when separately approved
Best fit · PE operating or technology leaders with existing findings and a live funding decision
Free starting points
Not ready to apply? Start with a real number.
Each free tool gives you a quantified output with no demo and no sales call. When the number earns attention, the design partner cohort above is the next step.
Free tool · No sales call
Board Cyber Brief
Generate a board-ready narrative that translates your security posture into EBITDA impact, peer benchmarks, and recommended actions. No heatmaps. Just dollars.
Generate BriefFree tool · No sales call
EU AI Act Assessment
Map your AI systems against EU AI Act requirements, identify high-risk classifications, and see the documentation gaps you need to close.
Start AssessmentFree tool · No sales call
Agent Authorization Gate
Estimate the financial exposure of autonomous AI agents as a first-pass planning screen. Illustrative, not a runtime kill switch.
Start AssessmentCommon objections
Questions buyers ask before they engage.
These are the real questions a CISO, CFO, or PE operating partner asks about a cyber-risk platform that translates exposure into EBITDA impact. Answered directly, with the same claim discipline the product enforces.
Is the dollar number actually defensible?
Every financial output Valty produces carries four fields visible at the point of use: method, confidence band (P10 / base / P90), source coverage, and freshness date. The number is not decorative. It is a decision-support estimate built on a FAIR-aligned Monte Carlo model that shows its assumptions rather than burying them in a disclaimer.
What “defensible” means in practice: the EBITDA bridge shows which control gaps drive the exposure, what probability and magnitude assumptions underlie each scenario, and what the evidence coverage is for each assumption. A CFO or board reviewer can challenge any individual driver directly, rather than needing to accept or reject a headline figure on faith.
The model does not claim precision it cannot earn. Outputs are labeled decision-support estimates. When source coverage is thin, Valty labels the evidence gap and can block the claim from publication rather than silently publishing it. V1 does not automatically rewrite FAIR input ranges solely because source coverage is thin.
What do you need to install, and what access does this require?
Valty works from available evidence. It does not require a new scanner, agent install, or privileged shell access to your production environment. The typical starting point is read access to the evidence sources you already operate: a scanner export, a GRC control export, a cloud security posture signal, or an identity and findings feed.
The platform ingests, normalizes, and enriches what is already there, and sits above your systems as a translation layer. Getting started does not require replacing them. Source adapters are scoped by the customer; data flows into Valty on the terms you define, not ours.
In the design-partner stage, the integration is co-designed with your team. We map which evidence sources cover which control domains, agree on freshness thresholds and owner assignments, and scope the connector surface to exactly what the proof motion needs, and nothing more.
How is this different from a GRC tool or a security rating?
Security ratings (BitSight, SecurityScorecard, etc.) score your external attack surface from the outside. They are fast and comparative, but they do not see your control verification state, your internal finding remediation status, or what the exposure means for EBITDA.
GRC platforms (ServiceNow, Archer, Tugboat Logic, etc.) track control frameworks, policy compliance, and audit workflows. They are the authoritative control register. What they rarely do is translate verified control gaps into a financial impact estimate a CFO or board can act on, or rank remediation priorities by ROI rather than framework weight.
Valty is a translation layer, not a competitor to either. It reads from your GRC and your scanner, maps control gaps to financial exposure scenarios using a FAIR-aligned model, ranks remediation by expected EBITDA impact per dollar spent, and packages the result as a board-ready proof artifact with source, confidence, and freshness visible. The GRC is still the control record. The rating is still the external signal. Valty is the business-impact layer above both.
Do you store our security data, and who owns it?
Your source-of-truth systems stay yours. Valty does not become the record system for your controls, findings, cloud posture, identity state, or financial model. Those remain in the systems you already operate.
Valty normalizes evidence from those systems into a proof object, a structured artifact that links the claim, the source, the confidence, the freshness, and the publication state. That proof object is tenant-isolated within your Valty workspace. No cross-tenant evidence exposure. No shared inference across accounts.
Data residency, retention periods, and subprocessor scope are addressed in the vendor security questionnaire and NDA, which are part of every design-partner onboarding. We do not publish detailed subprocessor lists without a reviewed trust-center artifact behind them. Contact security@valty.ai for the current security posture package.
You do not publish customer logos or references. Why should we trust this?
Valty has an active confidential design partnership, but does not publish the partner's identity or engagement specifics. We do not turn confidentiality into implied payment status, customer-authorized production scope, source authorization, or customer outcomes.
The current proof ladder is explicit. Valty-on-Valty dogfooding is real internal production evidence for the control, evidence, and governance workflows. The active design partnership adds external validation. The authenticated seeded demonstration shows the product path safely, but is not production or customer-outcome proof.
What buyers can evaluate directly is the deployed product, published methodology, inspectable proof model, and stage-labeled scenario library. Paid/customer outcomes, portability, and willingness to pay require separate evidence and are not represented here.
Stage-honest positioning is a constraint we enforce technically: the product’s claim-gate blocks unsupported assertions from being published in proof packs. We apply the same discipline to our own marketing copy.
Design partner
Know where cyber exposure is concentrated.
Fund what changes it most.
Bring the findings you already have. Valty makes them comparable, turns them into a reviewable funding order, and keeps the proof behind every recommendation attached.