Why the Lowest Price from Security Providers Can End Up Being the Most Expensive

A security provider should not be chosen based on price alone, but rather on the actual level of protection it provides. Key factors include the control center’s response times, image quality, AI-powered pre-filtering, transparent pricing models, and verifiable compliance (GDPR, KRITIS, ISO 27001). A low daily rate is only cost-effective if, in the event of an emergency, the system detects the incident, someone responds, the video footage is admissible in court, and the insurance company accepts the proof of damage. If not, a single incident will more than offset the original savings. This article highlights five common cost pitfalls and provides a checklist for selecting a provider.

A Story from Everyday Sales Life

Some time ago, a long-standing customer of our sales team decided to switch to another security provider. The reason: a significantly lower asking price. Which is a reasonable decision. After all, companies have to keep costs in check, budgets are tight, and security often feels like insurance: important, but invisible.

A few weeks later, we received a call: “Could you please check the surveillance footage? A truck driver damaged the new gate.” Today, that customer is working with us again. Not because we’re the cheapest option. But because, when it really mattered, someone was available who took responsibility—no questions asked, no extra charges.

This experience is not an isolated case. It highlights what many decision-makers don’t realize until the first incident occurs: The price is on sale. That value is evident in everyday life.

The True Cost of Construction Site Theft

Before we look at the typical cost pitfalls, let’s take a quick look at the order of magnitude. According to estimates from the construction insurance industry, the annual losses due to theft from construction sites in Germany are in the high double-digit millions, and the trend is upward. In addition, there is a high number of unreported cases, as many incidents go unreported.

Even more critical than the mere value of the materials are the follow-up costs: According to expert estimates, construction delays, contractual penalties, replacement purchases, and insurance disputes often exceed the actual loss from theft many times over.

A real-world example from case law illustrates the scale of the problem: The Saarbrücken Higher Regional Court upheld a claim by a construction company from which materials for interior finishing work, valued at 98,000 euros, were stolen from a building shell that was nearly complete. The ruling: Under Section 644 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the contractor bears the risk prior to acceptance even if only the building owner had a key to the building. In our article “Who Is Liable for Theft on a Construction Site?”, you can read about what this means for your liability in concrete terms.

These figures are the benchmark against which you should compare security providers. After all, it’s not the daily price that determines whether your investment pays off, but whether the system prevents even a single costly incident.

The 5 Hidden Cost Pitfalls When Comparing Security Providers

Cost Trap 2: Missing or Weak AI

This is where things get interesting from a technical standpoint. Many providers advertise high hit rates, but a hit rate on its own says little about practical effectiveness. The key factor is the interplay between the hit rate and the false alarm rate. Without intelligent pre-filtering, the following happens:

• Wind, animals, and shadows constantly trigger false alarms
• The control center is being flooded with reports of minor incidents
• The real incident gets lost amid the din of alarms
• Responses come too late when there are real threats

Modern systems therefore rely not only on edge computing but also on cloud-based AI filtering—that is, analysis performed directly on-site at the system and with much greater computing power in the cloud. More computing power leads to better results. The AI reliably distinguishes between people, animals, and vehicles, filters out irrelevant triggers, and adapts to changing conditions such as weather and lighting. The result: a high detection rate with a low false alarm rate—practical safety rather than just impressive statistics.

Cost Trap 5: Data Protection and Compliance Gaps

This cost trap is often underestimated and can end up being the most expensive one. According to the regulation, violations of the GDPR can result in fines of up to 4 percent of annual revenue. For projects involving critical infrastructure, the requirements of the KRITIS Framework Act have applied since 2025. Key factors to consider when comparing security providers:

• GDPR and KRITIS Compliance for Projects in Sensitive Areas
• Server location in Germany; no foreign cloud solutions with unclear data access
• NDAA-compliant technology (no components from manufacturers on the U.S. restricted list)
• ISO 27001 Certification for IT Security Framework
• No “backdoors”—that is, no hidden access points for third parties, such as those already documented in Chinese cameras manufactured by the state-owned company HikVision

If you answer all the questions honestly, you’ll usually see within just a few minutes which provider truly offers security and which one is just presenting a sales pitch. For an initial overview of how a well-thought-out provider selection process works in practice, see “Your Journey with Us ” and our customer testimonials.