AI Drives Shift in Software Security
March 22, 20266 min readStandard
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
AI securitysoftware securitycybersecuritymachine learningFazen Capital
AI-driven tooling is transforming software security workflows with measurable effects on detection, triage and remediation. Investing.com reported on March 22, 2026 that early AI pilots reduced mean time‑to‑detect (MTTD) by roughly 40% for 58% of participating firms in the sample cited; that result has become a focal data point for CISOs reallocating budgets. The change is not purely operational: vendors that integrate large‑language models (LLMs) and graph analysis into code scanning and runtime telemetry are now commanding premium valuations relative to legacy signature‑based providers. For institutional investors, this is a cross‑sector phenomenon: software vendors, managed security service providers (MSSPs), cloud hyperscalers and semiconductor firms that support AI workloads are all exposed to the acceleration of demand for AI-native security controls.
The shift toward AI in security must be placed in historical context. Traditional approaches—static analysis, rule engines and signature‑based intrusion detection—drove steady year‑on‑year improvements during the 2010s and early 2020s, but they struggled to scale with the explosion of cloud workloads and third‑party code. In 2023–2024, a succession of high‑profile breaches tied to supply‑chain vulnerabilities and misconfigured cloud services highlighted the limits of manual triage. What distinguishes the current cycle is not just automation but application of probabilistic models that prioritise high‑risk findings and reduce false positives, enabling security teams to reallocate scarce human capital to remediation.
Regulators and standards bodies are responding faster than in previous technology inflections. In 2025 several national data protection authorities updated guidance on automated decision‑making in security operations, signalling that deployments must be auditable, explainable and subject to governance. That regulatory overlay creates both a growth opportunity for vendors offering explainability features and a compliance hurdle for firms experimenting with black‑box models. Investors should therefore evaluate AI security exposure through three lenses: technical efficacy, governance-readiness and enterprise integration costs.
A small number of public datasets now allow empirical comparisons between AI-driven and legacy security controls. The Investing.com piece (Mar 22, 2026) cited a pilot cohort where 58% of firms reported a >40% reduction in MTTD; those firms also reported a 27% decline in analyst hours spent on triage in the first six months of deployment. Complementary industry metrics show vulnerability disclosures remained elevated: the NVD/CVE ecosystem recorded approximately 27,000 CVE entries in calendar 2025, an increase of about 12% year‑on‑year versus 2024, underscoring that discovery is increasing even as triage becomes faster.
Market sizing reinforces why capital markets are attentive. Gartner and independent sell‑side forecasts published between 2023 and 2025 placed the total addressable market for application security and cloud security tooling in the mid‑teens of billions annually; hyperscaler security services add another significant layer of spend. Vendors that can show demonstrable reduction in remediation lead time and lowered patch windows command higher enterprise contract conversion rates—sales cycles shorten by an average of 2–3 months in case studies published by vendors and corroborated by channel partners.
A comparison across vendor approaches is instructive. Pure-play static application security testing (SAST) providers tend to show higher rates of false positives versus ML‑assisted scanners; conversely, runtime protection and observability vendors that integrate behavioural models achieve greater coverage for zero‑day exploits but can introduce latency and cost concerns when model inference runs at scale. Benchmarks published in 2025 by several independent labs indicated detection rate improvements of 10–35% when models were tuned to organization‑specific telemetry, but those gains came with median cloud compute cost increases of 8–15% depending on inference architecture.
Software vendors with embedded AI security features stand to alter competitive dynamics in enterprise procurement. Buyers are increasingly evaluating integrated propositions—code to cloud—rather than point products, which benefits vendors with broad platform footprints. This is reshaping M&A activity: strategic acquirers from the cloud and infrastructure space are prioritising AI‑native security startups as bolt‑on capabilities, and private equity interest has accelerated for firms demonstrating 30%+ year‑on‑year ARR growth tied to AI feature adoption.
Cloud providers are simultaneously consolidating control through native security offerings. Hyperscalers that provide model‑proximate telemetry and managed model inference are uniquely positioned to offer low‑latency, high‑fidelity security signals to enterprise customers. That creates a bifurcation: enterprises with multi‑cloud strategies may incur integration and licensing complexity, while those standardised on a single hyperscaler may benefit from lower total cost of ownership but greater vendor lock‑in risk. Investors should scrutinize contract structures, renewal rates and cross‑sell metrics when assessing vendor resilience.
Hardware and semiconductor suppliers also participate through demand for AI accelerator chips and secure enclave technologies. The increase in model inference required for continuous application monitoring lifts demand for edge and cloud GPUs; independent estimates during 2025 showed a 15–20% uplift in accelerator consumption within security workloads, a non‑trivial add‑on to existing AI spend that supports companies across the silicon supply chain.
The introduction of AI brings new operational and governance risks that can materially affect valuation multiples. Model drift, adversarial inputs and poisoning attacks are real avenues that attackers may exploit to degrade detection efficacy or generate false leads. Recorded incidents in late 2024 and 2025 demonstrated that adversaries will probe ML pipelines; mitigation requires secure training data pipelines, model validation and active monitoring—capabilities that not all vendors have mature.
Regulatory and liability risk is another salient factor. When an automated model suppresses or misclassifies a vulnerability that later leads to a breach, questions about responsibility and auditability will follow. Insurance markets have already begun to consider model‑related exclusions; some cyber insurers adjusted policy terms in 2025 to require demonstrable model governance for coverage of incidents linked to AI decisioning. This trend increases the cost of capital for smaller vendors that cannot demonstrate robust governance frameworks.
Finally, economics matter. While AI can reduce labour‑intensive triage, the incremental cloud inference costs and engineering effort to integrate models into CI/CD and runtime stacks can delay net margin expansion. Early adopters reported IT‑ops and DevSecOps retooling costs that consumed 6–12 months of expected savings in many deployments. For investors, the timing of margin recovery and the sustainability of ARR growth are therefore critical due diligence points.
Fazen Capital views the AI transition in software security as a structural but uneven value migration. Our contrarian read is that the most compelling opportunities are not necessarily the shiny point‑solution startups yet commanding outsized multiples, but the mid‑cap platform vendors that combine broad telemetry access, strong enterprise contracts (net retention >110%) and rigorous model governance. These companies are better positioned to convert pilots into enterprise‑grade deployments and to defend pricing power in renewal cycles.
We also believe investors should place a premium on observable integration metrics, not just headline model accuracy numbers. Metrics such as mean time to remediation (MTTR) improvement, percent reduction in false positives, pilot-to‑prod conversion rate and incremental ARR attributable to AI features provide a more reliable read on durable monetisation. Vendors that can quantify a 20%+ improvement in MTTR and document material shrinkage in analyst hours will likely sustain higher retention and cross‑sell dynamics.
Lastly, our view emphasizes governance as a value driver. Firms that invest early in explainability tooling, third‑party audits and insurance‑grade validation processes will mitigate regulatory and liability discounting. As model‑centric security becomes commonplace, governance readiness will be a differentiator that justifies valuation premiums for long‑term investors.
Q: How quickly can enterprises expect AI security pilots to scale into production?
A: Pilot durations vary, but data in vendor case studies suggest pilot phases typically last 3–6 months, while full production rollouts across large enterprises can take 9–18 months depending on integration complexity and remediation playbook maturity. The conversion speed is faster for organisations with mature DevSecOps practices.
Q: Historically, have rapid technology shifts in security led to durable vendor concentration?
A: Past cycles (endpoint protection to EDR; perimeter to cloud security) show an initial proliferation of niche vendors followed by consolidation as enterprise procurement favours integrated solutions. We expect a similar pattern here: a proliferation of niche AI plays in the near term, followed by consolidation into platform providers and hyperscaler ecosystems over 24–48 months.
AI is materially reshaping software security economics: early pilots report substantial reductions in detection and triage time, but deployment-scale risks and governance requirements will determine winners. Investors should prioritise integration metrics, governance readiness and contract durability when assessing exposure.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.