Commissioned Research
Top 10 Best Cloud Based Cyber Security Services of 2026

GITNUXSOFTWARE REVIEW

Cybersecurity & Information Security

Top 10 Best Cloud Based Cyber Security Services of 2026

Compare cloud based cyber security services for cloud teams, outlining how Accenture, Deloitte, and KPMG differ for risk and compliance needs.

19 min readUpdated Editorially scoped research
How we ranked these tools
01Editorial Scope

Vendors set the topic, but our editors set the inclusion criteria and the evaluation framework before research starts.

02Source Research

Agents extract product evidence with provenance, then collect written reviews and transcribe video reviews and podcasts.

Read our full methodology →

Framework: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%

Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page. This does not influence our reviews. Editorial policy

Cloud based cyber security service providers help CISOs manage risk across AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud using consulting-led controls, managed detection, and response workflows tied to audit logs, RBAC, and provisioning events. This comparison helps technical evaluators weigh build versus run ownership for cloud security monitoring, threat detection automation, and data model alignment across cloud and hybrid environments.

Accenture is the best choice for CISOs needing governed cloud security execution across identity, detection, and migration programs, because its delivery model blends cloud security engineering with managed operations governance for consistent control outcomes, while ReliaQuest fits security teams that want case-driven cloud threat investigation with governed automation and repeatable tuning thanks to its workflow that captures playbook knowledge and improves consistency over time.

Editor’s top 3 picks

Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.

Editor pick
1

Accenture

Delivery model pairs cloud security engineering with managed operations governance for consistent control outcomes across teams.

Best for: Fits when CISOs need governed cloud security execution across identity, detection, and migration programs.

2

KPMG

Editor pick

Enterprise-grade control governance that produces stakeholder-ready audit artifacts alongside cloud security monitoring support.

Best for: Fits when enterprises need cloud security governance and incident response coordination across many business units.

3

Deloitte

Editor pick

Control mapping and operating-model design that ties cloud security requirements to enforceable identity and response processes.

Best for: Fits when enterprises need governance-grade cloud security delivery plus identity and response alignment.

Comparison Table

1
AccentureBest overall
enterprise_vendor
9.4/10
Overall
2
enterprise_vendor
8.9/10
Overall
3
enterprise_vendor
8.8/10
Overall
4
enterprise_vendor
8.3/10
Overall
5
enterprise_vendor
8.0/10
Overall
6
specialist
7.8/10
Overall
7
specialist
7.6/10
Overall
8
specialist
7.2/10
Overall
9
enterprise_vendor
6.8/10
Overall
10
enterprise_vendor
6.5/10
Overall
#1

Accenture

enterprise_vendor

Cloud security consulting and managed security services for global enterprises.

9.4/10
Overall
Features9.4/10
Ease of Use9.3/10
Value9.5/10
Standout feature

Delivery model pairs cloud security engineering with managed operations governance for consistent control outcomes across teams.

Accenture fits teams that need more than tooling by coordinating people, process, and cloud technical controls into a governed runbook. Delivery commonly includes managed security operations support, incident response orchestration, and integration work that maps cloud telemetry into SOC workflows with clear ownership for detection tuning. The service emphasis on governance and engineering execution makes it a strong fit for multi-cloud programs with shared responsibilities that require consistent policy enforcement.

A key tradeoff is that Accenture execution tends to require active stakeholder engagement for governance decisions, change approvals, and identity or access policy outcomes. Accenture is a strong fit when a CISO office needs coordinated delivery across cloud security foundations, operating model design, and operational tuning for detection and response.

Pros
  • +Program governance and delivery engineering aligned to cloud security controls
  • +Security operations integration work for cloud telemetry into SOC workflows
  • +Incident response orchestration support with measurable tuning checkpoints
  • +Architecture and migration support that reduces security drift during change
Cons
  • –Requires governance decisions from client stakeholders to keep momentum
  • –Integration scope can be broad for teams wanting only tool management
  • –Operational maturity expectations are higher than for purely managed SOC
  • –Change management overhead increases during identity and access policy shifts
Use scenarios
  • CISO and security governance

    Multi-cloud control program with evidence

    Audit-aligned control ownership

  • Security operations teams

    SOC tuning for cloud detections

    Lower detection time

Show 1 more scenario
  • Cloud platform teams

    Secure migration with policy continuity

    Consistent security posture

    Accenture supports migration planning with security baselines and change controls to prevent drift.

Best for: Fits when CISOs need governed cloud security execution across identity, detection, and migration programs.

#2

KPMG

enterprise_vendor

Cloud cybersecurity risk and managed security services.

8.9/10
Overall
Features8.9/10
Ease of Use8.9/10
Value8.9/10
Standout feature

Enterprise-grade control governance that produces stakeholder-ready audit artifacts alongside cloud security monitoring support.

KPMG fits CISOs who need security outcomes backed by delivery governance, with work structured around documented control design, reporting, and stakeholder-ready artifacts. Cloud programs can include threat monitoring support, cloud environment assessments, and remediation guidance across identity, access, and configuration topics. The engagement model tends to be strongest when multiple cloud accounts and business units require consistent control policies and reporting.

A tradeoff is that KPMG delivery depth depends on engagement scoping, so some teams may need internal engineering bandwidth to operationalize remediation work beyond monitoring. KPMG is a strong option when a CISO needs audit-ready governance trails and coordinated incident response planning across cloud estates rather than only point tooling.

Pros
  • +Governance reporting that maps security findings to control expectations
  • +Incident response coordination designed for enterprise stakeholders
  • +Cross-team delivery structure across cloud accounts and business units
  • +Risk-based security assessment that supports remediation planning
Cons
  • –Automation depth depends on scoping and integration responsibilities
  • –Configuration remediation often requires internal engineering execution
  • –Role clarity can lag during early onboarding across shared workstreams
  • –Tooling coverage may vary by selected add-ons and delivery scope
Use scenarios
  • CISO office and risk leaders

    Audit-ready oversight for cloud control gaps

    Clear audit evidence packages

  • Security operations teams

    Coordinated incident response across clouds

    Faster containment decisions

Show 2 more scenarios
  • Identity and access owners

    Reduce privileged access and misconfigurations

    Tighter least-privilege posture

    Engagement work focuses on access governance and remediation planning tied to security risk.

  • Cloud risk managers

    Ongoing monitoring with remediation governance

    Lower time to remediation

    KPMG ties detection coverage to a controlled remediation cadence across accounts and teams.

Best for: Fits when enterprises need cloud security governance and incident response coordination across many business units.

#3

Deloitte

enterprise_vendor

Cloud cybersecurity advisory, risk management, and managed security services.

8.8/10
Overall
Features8.8/10
Ease of Use8.8/10
Value8.8/10
Standout feature

Control mapping and operating-model design that ties cloud security requirements to enforceable identity and response processes.

Deloitte fits teams that need managed oversight paired with design and implementation work, including identity and access program strengthening, cloud environment security baselines, and response playbooks tied to enterprise detection. Engagements often coordinate security architecture changes with stakeholders across IT, cloud platform teams, and security operations to reduce gaps between policy and enforcement. The delivery model supports RBAC-aligned access reviews, privileged access processes, and evidence collection workflows that CISOs use for leadership reporting.

A tradeoff appears in integration depth and automation surface, because delivery outcomes depend on the client environment, toolchain choices, and stakeholder availability rather than a standardized self-serve workflow. Deloitte works best when the organization can allocate engineering time for access control changes, logging readiness, and configuration-as-code remediation. Deloitte can be harder to use as a rapid stopgap when time is short and the client wants immediate coverage without engineering alignment.

Pros
  • +Governance-grade security control mapping for leadership and audit reporting
  • +Delivery teams align identity controls with operating model and enforcement
  • +Incident response playbooks integrate with enterprise monitoring workflows
  • +Cloud configuration remediation guidance tailored to each environment
Cons
  • –Less self-serve automation than tool-first managed service providers
  • –Deep engagement needs engineering time for access and logging changes
  • –API-driven extensibility depends on chosen tooling and integration scope
  • –Turnaround can slow when stakeholders and remediation owners lag
Use scenarios
  • CISO and security leadership

    Control mapping for cloud security accountability

    Clear ownership and evidence

  • Identity and access teams

    RBAC cleanup and privileged access processes

    Reduced over-privilege exposure

Show 2 more scenarios
  • Security operations leaders

    Incident response playbooks with monitoring integration

    Faster investigation handoffs

    Deloitte maps detection signals to response workflows and escalation paths across teams.

  • Cloud platform engineering

    Cloud configuration baselines and remediation

    Fewer recurring configuration gaps

    Remediation guidance targets misconfigurations using environment-aware baselines and rollout plans.

Best for: Fits when enterprises need governance-grade cloud security delivery plus identity and response alignment.

#4

PwC

enterprise_vendor

Cloud cybersecurity consulting and managed security services.

8.3/10
Overall
Features8.3/10
Ease of Use8.3/10
Value8.3/10
Standout feature

Governance-to-operations delivery that converts cloud security assessments into leadership-ready evidence and response workflows.

PwC delivers managed cyber security services that blend incident response, cloud security engineering, and security governance for enterprise environments. The distinct value comes from how its security delivery connects risk and control programs to cloud operations work, including evidence-ready reporting and stakeholder-ready documentation for security leadership. PwC commonly supports cloud security initiatives through advisory-grade design for architectures, runbook and response planning, and integration with customer tooling for detection, investigation, and compliance workflows.

Pros
  • +Integration of cloud security work with governance and risk reporting
  • +Incident response planning and execution support with enterprise coordination
  • +Cloud-focused engineering guidance grounded in control frameworks
  • +Evidence and documentation output geared for leadership and auditors
Cons
  • –Automation and API depth depends heavily on customer tooling integration
  • –Operational workflows can require significant internal stakeholder availability
  • –Cloud coverage breadth varies by engagement scope and selected assets
  • –Admin and RBAC granularity is less product-native than specialized platforms

Best for: Fits when enterprises need cloud security delivery tied to controls, response execution, and audit-ready documentation for CISOs.

#5

EY

enterprise_vendor

Cloud cybersecurity advisory and managed security services.

8.0/10
Overall
Features8.0/10
Ease of Use8.0/10
Value8.0/10
Standout feature

Governance-to-operations delivery that connects cloud audit logging, incident playbooks, and executive risk reporting into one engagement workflow.

EY delivers cloud security consulting and managed security services that wrap advisory work around operational delivery for security programs and incident response. The service model centers on risk governance, identity and access controls, and threat-led program execution across hybrid cloud environments.

Pros
  • +Controls and governance mapping connected to executive reporting
  • +Incident response operations with clear escalation paths
  • +Security monitoring integration for cloud audit log pipelines
  • +Delivery guidance tied to cloud security program milestones
Cons
  • –API depth depends on engagement scope and system boundaries
  • –Cloud configuration scanning coverage may require additional tooling alignment
  • –Automation output can lag teams needing self-serve orchestration
  • –Operational control relies on EY process integration effort

Best for: Fits when CISOs need managed incident response and governance-driven cloud control execution across enterprises.

#6

ReliaQuest

specialist

Security operations platform and managed services for cloud and hybrid environments.

7.8/10
Overall
Features7.8/10
Ease of Use7.8/10
Value7.8/10
Standout feature

ReliaQuest case workflow ties detection events to investigation playbooks and captured tuning knowledge, improving consistency over time.

ReliaQuest delivers cloud security analytics and managed detection workflows that connect threat signals to specific infrastructure and identity context, with a heavy focus on investigating and responding rather than only flagging risk. Its ReliaQuest security operations approach routes telemetry into detections, then supports analyst-driven tuning using case workflows, knowledge capture, and repeatable playbooks.

Pros
  • +Case-driven workflows tie detections to investigation steps and outcomes.
  • +Knowledge capture supports repeatable tuning across similar incident patterns.
  • +Automation and playbooks reduce manual triage during recurring alerts.
  • +Integration with common security telemetry enables faster context enrichment.
Cons
  • –Cloud coverage depth depends on the telemetry and integration scope.
  • –Governance effort rises when teams want consistent RBAC and approval paths.
  • –Automation quality depends on detection tuning cycles and analyst feedback.
  • –Direct cloud configuration scanning breadth may require partner tooling for full coverage.

Best for: Fits when security teams need managed cloud threat investigation with governed automation and repeatable tuning across incidents.

#7

Deepwatch

specialist

Managed security services focused on cloud-native security operations and threat detection.

7.6/10
Overall
Features7.6/10
Ease of Use7.6/10
Value7.6/10
Standout feature

Managed remediation execution that connects assessment findings to implemented configuration changes in customer cloud environments.

Deepwatch differentiates itself by delivering managed security services tightly coupled to customer cloud operations rather than offering only monitoring views. Its core capabilities focus on cloud security assessments, remediation execution, and ongoing detection support across customer environments.

Pros
  • +Engineering-led remediation planning tied to real cloud operations
  • +Clear managed workflow from assessment findings to executed fixes
  • +Strong support for identity and cloud exposure reduction tasks
  • +Integration focus across security tooling used by cloud teams
Cons
  • –Service delivery depends on active customer participation and approvals
  • –Automation depth varies by environment maturity and tooling alignment
  • –Governance-heavy programs can add coordination overhead
  • –Results depend on scoping clarity for what gets continuously covered

Best for: Fits when CISOs need managed cloud security execution across identity and workloads, with ongoing detection support.

#8

Arctic Wolf

specialist

Concierge-managed security services including cloud security monitoring and detection.

7.2/10
Overall
Features7.2/10
Ease of Use7.1/10
Value7.3/10
Standout feature

Managed security operations that run investigation and response as repeatable, escalation-ready playbooks tied to telemetry.

Arctic Wolf pairs cloud detection and response with managed security operations to help teams reduce time from alert to containment. Its service work centers on investigation workflows that connect telemetry, triage, and guided response actions across endpoints, cloud systems, and identity-related signals.

Pros
  • +Managed investigations translate detections into documented containment steps
  • +Clear escalation paths and remediation tracking for cloud-facing security issues
  • +Operational playbooks align response actions with recurring alert patterns
  • +Governance-focused reporting supports audit-ready incident narratives
Cons
  • –Hands-on configuration ownership can still fall to the customer
  • –API and automation depth is limited versus automation-first product stacks
  • –Coverage breadth depends on which integrations are installed and maintained
  • –Reporting templates may need work to match specialized internal KPIs

Best for: Fits when mid-market and enterprise teams need governed cloud incident handling with guided remediation workflows.

#9

NCC Group

enterprise_vendor

Cybersecurity services including cloud security assessment, assurance, and managed detection.

6.8/10
Overall
Features6.8/10
Ease of Use6.8/10
Value6.8/10
Standout feature

Evidence-driven assessment reports paired with engineering remediation support for cloud-specific weaknesses and follow-through.

NCC Group provides cloud-focused security services that translate evidence from cloud environments into risk reduction work for enterprises. Its core delivery covers security assessments, managed security engineering, and incident-support activities that connect cloud telemetry to practical remediation.

Pros
  • +Security assessment deliverables that map findings to remediation actions
  • +Incident-support experience that ties cloud evidence to response workflows
  • +Governance-friendly reporting for risk and audit stakeholders
  • +Engineering-led hardening guidance tied to specific cloud exposure
Cons
  • –Automation and API surface are engagement-scoped rather than product-native
  • –Depth of continuous monitoring depends on included managed services scope
  • –Cross-cloud coverage requires clear target environment scoping
  • –Requires customer ownership for access setup and remediation execution

Best for: Fits when enterprises need evidence-led cloud security assessments plus remediation engineering support for risk governance.

#10

Optiv

enterprise_vendor

Cybersecurity solutions integrator offering cloud security advisory and managed services.

6.5/10
Overall
Features6.5/10
Ease of Use6.5/10
Value6.5/10
Standout feature

Detection engineering and operational remediation guidance delivered as part of ongoing cloud security operations support.

Optiv fits CISOs and security leaders who need managed cloud security services tied to incident readiness, not just point tooling. It delivers consulting-led detection engineering, cloud security operations support, and security program integration that connects governance work to alert handling workflows.

Pros
  • +Managed cloud security operations with incident-ready detection engineering support
  • +Strong governance to remediation translation via assessments and operational runbooks
  • +Integration focus across identity risk, cloud hardening, and SOC workflows
  • +Clear delivery ownership for remediation tracking across stakeholders
Cons
  • –Scales more smoothly with defined client governance and decision timelines
  • –Some workflows depend on engagement-specific configurations rather than self-serve tuning
  • –Automation depth varies by cloud scope and the set of existing monitoring tools
  • –Operational overhead rises when identity and cloud change processes are immature

Best for: Fits when CISOs need managed cloud security operations plus governance-driven remediation, with integration across SOC and identity stakeholders.

Conclusion

After evaluating 10 cloud based cyber security, Accenture stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.

Our Top Pick
Accenture

Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.

How to Choose the Right Cloud Based Cyber Security

The biggest differences come from how each option handles auditability and automation in cloud environments, not from marketing terms. We focus on criteria like Audit log export and API access so you can see what changes your security posture when workloads move.

Audit log export controls

Why it matters

Audit log export controls decide whether you can prove who changed what in your cloud and when. Without clear export and retention options, investigations stall when incidents cross teams.

How to check

In the demo, find an audit log view and show export format options (for example, bulk export or event streaming) plus retention settings. Ask whether exports include admin actions, policy changes, and role changes tied to cloud objects.

Automation via documented APIs

Why it matters

Automation via documented APIs matters because cloud security work often needs repeatable workflows. If the API surface is thin, teams end up with manual steps and missed guardrails.

How to check

Ask for an API reference and review authentication methods in the console. Then request a sample automation workflow: provision policy, run a scan/check, and export results via API calls.

Misconfiguration coverage scope

Why it matters

Misconfiguration coverage scope shows how well the tool catches risky cloud settings where attackers usually start. Coverage gaps create a false sense of control when teams move to new services.

How to check

Ask for a coverage map by cloud service category and request examples of misconfiguration findings. During the demo, pick one service your team uses and confirm the tool can detect at least two relevant risky configurations with remediation guidance.

RBAC and admin governance

Why it matters

RBAC and admin governance control who can view findings, change rules, and access evidence. In practice, bad role boundaries cause overexposure of security data and inconsistent enforcement.

How to check

In the demo, show role types and what each role can do (view-only, analyst, admin). Ask to demonstrate a separation: create a restricted user, then attempt a policy edit and verify it is blocked.

Finding lifecycle and exceptions

Why it matters

Finding lifecycle and exceptions decide whether the system stays trusted after real-world noise. If exceptions are hard to audit or expire, teams either ignore alerts or drown in them.

How to check

Trigger a known check and show how the finding moves through states (new, acknowledged, resolved). Then demonstrate an exception: create one for a specific resource, show expiry behavior, and verify the audit trail includes who granted it.

Red flags

  • Audit logs omit policy and role changes
  • APIs are undocumented or can’t reproduce demo actions
  • Exceptions persist without clear scope and expiry

Fit by situation

  • If we need evidence for incident timelines and admin accountability, prioritize Audit log export controls.
  • If we plan to automate policy and evidence pulls into our workflows, prioritize Automation via documented APIs.
  • If our cloud estate changes often and we rely on consistent alert trust, prioritize Finding lifecycle and exceptions.

Frequently Asked Questions About Cloud Based Cyber Security

How do cloud security services integrate with existing SIEM, ticketing, and automation workflows?
ReliaQuest ties detections to case workflows so analysts can route cloud incidents into repeatable response playbooks, which reduces context switching between logging and investigation. Arctic Wolf translates telemetry into guided investigation and escalation actions, then records remediation progress in a structured operating model that can align to SOC ticket queues. EY and PwC also focus on integrating incident response steps into enterprise monitoring and security governance processes rather than running isolated alert handling.
Which services handle identity federation and conditional access patterns for cloud and hybrid teams?
Deloitte emphasizes identity and access controls in its delivery model, connecting policies to enforceable operating plans across cloud environments. EY centers risk governance and identity and access controls, then runs incident playbooks with documented escalation paths that reflect enterprise access decision flows. Accenture combines engineering-led delivery with managed operations governance across identity, infrastructure, and detection workflows, which supports consistent control outcomes when federation and access conditions are already defined.
When a team needs to migrate security responsibilities from on-prem to cloud, what onboarding steps reduce downtime?
Deepwatch pairs cloud assessments with remediation execution so teams can turn control findings into implemented configuration changes during migration windows. Optiv connects governance work to alert handling workflows, which helps teams shift detection readiness and incident readiness as cloud workloads cut over. Accenture’s delivery model brings program governance and technical execution into the same motion, which helps coordinate identity, cloud infrastructure, and detection changes instead of treating migration as a separate program.
What admin controls and audit evidence are typically required for CISO oversight across cloud services?
KPMG delivers stakeholder-ready audit artifacts tied to cloud security monitoring support, which helps CISOs map technical controls to business risk narratives. NCC Group emphasizes traceable remediation guidance and governance-friendly reporting so evidence production stays linked to identified weaknesses and follow-through work. PwC also focuses on leadership-ready documentation that connects assessments to response workflows, which reduces gaps between operational logs and governance review.
How do managed services extend beyond monitoring to include detection engineering or runtime response?
Arctic Wolf runs managed security operations that translate alerts into repeatable playbooks with guided containment actions, which goes beyond view-only monitoring. ReliaQuest routes telemetry into detections and supports analyst-driven tuning using case workflows and captured knowledge, which improves detection refinement over time. Optiv adds consulting-led detection engineering and operational remediation guidance as part of ongoing cloud security operations support.
What breaks if cloud audit logging is incomplete, delayed, or inconsistent across accounts and regions?
Managed detection and investigation workflows degrade when telemetry gaps prevent reliable triage, which is why Arctic Wolf structures investigation and escalation actions around available signals. ReliaQuest’s case workflow routing depends on consistent detection inputs, so missing or delayed events can reduce investigation consistency across incidents. EY and PwC both integrate cloud audit logging into monitoring workflows, and incomplete logging increases the gap between incident playbooks and evidence expected by governance stakeholders.
Which providers are better aligned to organizations that want remediation tied to assessments rather than handoff reports?
Deepwatch differentiates by coupling managed services to customer cloud operations, including remediation execution that turns findings into configuration changes. NCC Group pairs evidence-led assessments with engineering remediation support, which keeps follow-through tied to identified cloud-specific weaknesses. Accenture also brings engineering-led delivery under program governance so remediation work can be coordinated with detection and identity changes.
How should teams plan data model and schema alignment for cloud security telemetry and case workflows?
ReliaQuest supports analyst-driven tuning through case workflows and captured knowledge, which depends on consistent mapping between detection events and investigation context. Arctic Wolf’s guided playbooks translate telemetry into repeatable response actions, so teams need clear event fields and escalation routing to maintain throughput from triage to containment. Deloitte and EY emphasize translating requirements into operating models and policies, which supports schema decisions that match how enterprise monitoring and response teams consume data.
When does service delivery become a bottleneck for high-throughput cloud incident handling?
Arctic Wolf is strongest when cloud visibility already exists, because its managed operations translate alerts into guided actions using an operating model for reporting and escalation. Deepwatch can speed up remediation outcomes when governance and ticket-to-remediation workflows already exist in the customer environment, but it depends on defined operational intake. Accenture shifts delivery into a governed engineering program across identity, infrastructure, and detection workflows, which can slow execution if internal change ownership and escalation paths are not ready.

Tools reviewed

Primary sources checked during evaluation.

Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.

Commissioned Research

Funding and competing interests

This study was co-funded by several of the vendors assessed in it. No single vendor funded it. Funders could propose the market studied.

They had no role in selecting vendors, setting or weighting criteria, analysing data or drawing conclusions, and they received the same factual-accuracy check as every other vendor assessed.

Market definition, inclusion rules and criteria weights were fixed by an editor before research began and did not change afterwards. Editorial process →

Keep exploring

FOR SOFTWARE VENDORS

Not on this list? Let’s fix that.

Our best-of pages are how many teams discover and compare tools in this space. If you think your product belongs in this lineup, we’d like to hear from you—we’ll walk you through fit and what an editorial entry looks like.

Apply for a Listing

WHAT THIS INCLUDES

  • Where buyers compare

    Readers come to these pages to shortlist software—your product shows up in that moment, not in a random sidebar.

  • Editorial write-up

    We describe your product in our own words and check the facts before anything goes live.

  • On-page brand presence

    You appear in the roundup the same way as other tools we cover: name, positioning, and a clear next step for readers who want to learn more.

  • Kept up to date

    We refresh lists on a regular rhythm so the category page stays useful as products and pricing change.