Measure vendor trust using transparent cybersecurity factors. Tune weights, record evidence, and export reports instantly. Use scores to prioritize reviews and reduce third-party risk.
Each metric is scored from 0 to 5 and multiplied by its weight. The weighted sum is normalized to a 0–100 scale.
Multipliers apply small adjustments so the score remains comparable, while still reflecting evidence gaps and data exposure.
| Vendor | Criticality | Data sensitivity | Evidence confidence | Trust score | Band | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acme Cloud Services | High | Regulated | 90% | 82.40 | Strong | Target SDLC proof and patch SLA reporting. |
| BrightCRM | Medium | Restricted | 70% | 63.10 | Adequate | Request SOC report and incident response runbooks. |
| Northwind Analytics | Low | Standard | 60% | 48.85 | Weak | Run deeper assessment before renewal. |
Use the same weights for fair comparisons across suppliers.
Third‑party compromise is a frequent entry point for attackers, and vendor security maturity varies widely across the same market. This calculator turns assessment evidence into a repeatable 0–100 score so procurement, security, and legal can share one view. Teams can baseline new suppliers, compare renewals, and justify compensating controls when a preferred vendor is not yet at target. Many programs set thresholds, such as 70 for onboarding and 85 for high‑criticality services, then require approvals below target. Because the score is normalized, it supports benchmarking across business units and highlights where shared‑responsibility controls are required internally.
The model uses eleven control families that correlate with operational resilience: audits and attestations, incident transparency, vulnerability handling, patch timelines, least‑privilege access, enforced strong authentication, encryption and key hygiene, secure development discipline, monitoring and response, privacy handling, and recovery readiness. Each item is scored 0–5 to discourage false precision while still capturing meaningful differences.
Weights define impact. If a vendor processes regulated data, increase privacy and encryption weight, and keep access and monitoring high. If the vendor operates critical infrastructure, prioritize patch SLAs and recovery testing. If you rely on frequent releases, emphasize secure SDLC and vulnerability management. Lock weights for a review cycle so vendors are compared fairly and year‑over‑year changes reflect real improvements, not shifting criteria.
A strong narrative without artifacts can hide weaknesses. The evidence confidence input scales the score when proof is limited. Higher confidence typically comes from current audit reports, penetration summaries, incident postmortems, ticket extracts showing remediation, and screenshots or policy excerpts that match practice. Using confidence also guides your next request list: it highlights where verification matters most.
Use the “Top improvements” list to draft targeted actions with owners and deadlines. Convert low scores into specific contract clauses: admin MFA enforcement, logging retention, breach notification timelines, patch SLAs, and recovery objectives with test cadence. Export the PDF for governance packs and the CSV for vendor trackers. Re-score after remediation to quantify progress and support go/no‑go decisions.
It indicates missing evidence or unanswered questions. Unknowns lower trust because gaps can conceal weak controls. Use it to request artifacts, confirmations, or a follow‑up call before approving access.
Customize weights when exposure differs. Document the rationale, keep weights consistent across vendors, and review changes only at the start of a new assessment cycle.
Control scores measure the strength of practices. Evidence confidence measures how well those claims are verified with audits, technical proof, and operational records.
Yes. Compare the top gaps and context. A vendor with weak monitoring may warrant stricter conditions than one with weaker documentation, even if totals match.
At onboarding, annually, and after major incidents or architecture changes. High‑criticality vendors often benefit from semiannual reviews aligned to audit refresh dates.
Recent audit reports, penetration summaries, vulnerability remediation tickets, incident postmortems, MFA and access policy evidence, encryption/key management diagrams, and recovery test results usually improve confidence quickly.
Important Note: All the Calculators listed in this site are for educational purpose only and we do not guarentee the accuracy of results. Please do consult with other sources as well.