Enterprise security teams are spending more time managing their penetration testing programmes than running them. Scheduling, scoping, chasing stakeholders, tracking findings in spreadsheets, and manually assembling audit evidence — the admin overhead is enormous, and most of it is invisible.

This report from OnSecurity, based on analysis of 14,000+ security engagements across 500+ organisations, quantifies the real cost of running a security testing programme without dedicated tooling — and shows what the shift to a platform-driven model looks like in practice.

What you will learn:

• How ~20 days of admin overhead per engagement breaks down across scoping, scheduling and coordination
• Why 76% of organisations testing multiple asset types face compounding complexity
• The four characteristics of streamlined security operations that cut human effort by 30-50%
• A practical checklist for programme structure, remediation tracking, compliance readiness and tooling

Most security programmes produce findings. Far fewer have the infrastructure to make sure those findings actually get fixed. The result is the "report and forget" pattern — tests are conducted, reports are issued, and months later the same vulnerabilities reappear.

This success story from OnSecurity, based on analysis of 14,000+ security engagements across 500+ organisations, examines why remediation stalls, what it costs when findings sit unresolved, and what a closed-loop workflow looks like in practice.

What you will learn:

• Why unresolved findings create compounding risk across multi-asset programmes
• The operational shift from PDF-based reporting to platform-enabled remediation tracking
• How leading teams achieve a 30% average improvement in MTTR and MTTF
• What the five-step closed-loop remediation workflow looks like: Discover → Assign → Track → Retest → Close

Get the full success story to see how to operationalise remediation across your security programme.

Security teams operating under PCI DSS, ISO 27001, SOC 2 or Cyber Essentials Plus know the real challenge is not running penetration tests - it is proving they happened, documenting what was found, and showing remediation within a defined window. Most teams rebuild this evidence from scratch before every audit.

This case study from OnSecurity, based on analysis of 14,000+ security engagements across 500+ organisations, breaks down the compliance patterns that create the most overhead and shows what a continuously audit-ready programme looks like.

What you will learn:

• Why evidence fragmentation is the top compliance time drain
• Four failure modes that affect regulated organisations most
• How platform-enabled testing programmes reduce manual effort by 30-50%
• What practical, always-ready compliance looks like across fintech, healthtech and SaaS

Get the full case study to see a better model for compliance-ready security testing.

Enterprise security teams are spending more time managing their penetration testing programmes than running them. Scheduling, scoping, chasing stakeholders, tracking findings in spreadsheets, and manually assembling audit evidence — the admin overhead is enormous, and most of it is invisible.

This report from OnSecurity, based on analysis of 14,000+ security engagements across 500+ organisations, quantifies the real cost of running a security testing programme without dedicated tooling — and shows what the shift to a platform-driven model looks like in practice.

What you will learn:

• How ~20 days of admin overhead per engagement breaks down across scoping, scheduling and coordination
• Why 76% of organisations testing multiple asset types face compounding complexity
• The four characteristics of streamlined security operations that cut human effort by 30-50%
• A practical checklist for programme structure, remediation tracking, compliance readiness and tooling