Estimator inputs
Formula used
The estimator treats security work as an overhead percentage applied to your base engineering effort. It adds percent points for baseline security level, compliance, exposure, deployment frequency, selected controls, and optional custom overhead. Then it scales for architectural complexity, reduces effort for automation maturity, and adds a contingency buffer for late findings and rework.
pct_after_arch = additive_pct × architecture_multiplier
pct_after_automation = pct_after_arch × (1 − automation_reduction)
final_pct = pct_after_automation × (1 + contingency_pct/100)
overhead_hours = base_hours × final_pct/100
overhead_cost = overhead_hours × hourly_rate
capacity_per_week = team_size × utilization × efficiency/100
estimated_weeks = (base_hours + overhead_hours) / capacity_per_week
Tip: If you already include some security work in base hours, lower custom overhead or uncheck controls to avoid double counting.
How to use this calculator
- Enter your base plan: hours, team size, rate, and baseline duration.
- Select your security level, compliance needs, and threat exposure.
- Choose architecture and release cadence to reflect operational reality.
- Tick the controls you expect to implement or validate.
- Set automation maturity and contingency to match your pipeline strength.
- Press Estimate overhead to see impact above the form.
- Download CSV or PDF for planning notes and stakeholder reviews.
Example data table
Example scenario shows how different security choices change overhead. Run your own numbers for accurate planning.
| Scenario | Base hours | Team | Level | Compliance | Exposure | Selected controls | Overhead rate | Added hours | Added cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product MVP | 600 | 4 | Moderate | None | Internet-facing | IAM, TLS, SAST, dependencies, review | ~30% | ~180 | ~8,100 |
| Regulated launch | 1,000 | 6 | High | SOC 2 | Public critical | + threat modeling, logging, DAST, pen test | ~65% | ~650 | ~29,250 |
| Platform hardening | 1,400 | 8 | Critical | PCI DSS | Public critical | + red team, HSM, SIEM, IR playbooks | ~95% | ~1,330 | ~59,850 |
Example costs assume a 45/hour labor rate and are illustrative only.
Security overhead as a planning signal
Security work is rarely “extra”; it competes with delivery capacity. This estimator converts security activities into an overhead rate that can be applied to a base plan. Internal-only services may run 5–12% overhead, while internet‑facing products commonly land at 10–30% with standard controls. Regulated launches can exceed 60% when evidence, testing, and remediation cycles are included.
Drivers that move the overhead rate
Baseline security level sets the minimum bar for reviews and hardening. Compliance adds documentation, access controls, and audit-ready evidence such as tickets, approvals, and scan logs. Exposure increases validation depth, including abuse testing and boundary checks. Deployment frequency pushes more pipeline automation, and each selected control contributes incremental effort. Architecture complexity multiplies work because controls must be implemented consistently across components and shared libraries.
Interpreting hours, cost, and schedule slip
The output separates added hours from total hours, then prices overhead using the hourly rate. Schedule impact is estimated using effective weekly capacity: team size × utilization × efficiency. For example, a five‑person team at 30 hours per week and 85% efficiency provides 127.5 effective hours weekly. If total work increases by 500 hours, the schedule extends by roughly 3.9 weeks at that capacity. Costs reflect labor; add tooling, audits, and third‑party tests separately.
Tuning assumptions for your environment
Defaults are conservative planning values. If your organization already has centralized identity, logging, or key management, uncheck those controls or reduce custom overhead to avoid double counting. If pen tests consistently produce high-severity findings, increase contingency to 15–20%. If automation is strong, moving maturity from Medium to High reduces repeated manual effort, shortens feedback loops, and stabilizes release cadence.
Using results for governance and budgeting
Use the breakdown table to explain why the overhead rate changed between quarters or initiatives. Capture the selected controls as a “security scope” for stakeholder alignment and procurement planning. Download CSV for portfolio spreadsheets and the PDF for decision reviews. When estimates are high, consider sequencing: implement foundational controls first, then run deeper testing after core functionality stabilizes, and reserve time for remediation and re-testing gates. Re-estimate after scope or risk changes occur.
FAQs
What does the overhead rate represent?
It is the estimated additional engineering effort for security tasks and coordination, expressed as a percent of base hours. It helps compare scenarios and forecast impact, not measure security quality or guarantee compliance.
Should I include tool licensing in the hourly rate?
No. Keep the hourly rate as labor only so hours and cost stay consistent. Track scanners, audits, and third‑party testing as separate line items, then add them to the total budget outside this calculator.
How do I avoid double counting work already planned?
If security reviews, logging, or encryption are already in your base backlog, either reduce base hours or uncheck the matching controls. Custom overhead is also useful for a single adjustment when your process differs from defaults.
Why does architecture complexity increase overhead so much?
Complex systems need consistent controls across services, shared libraries, and data paths. That raises integration effort, review surface area, and test scope. Coordination overhead also grows because changes must be rolled out and verified in multiple places.
When should I raise the contingency buffer?
Increase contingency when you expect late findings, unfamiliar domains, new compliance obligations, or significant dependency risk. Many teams use 10% for steady work, 15–20% for high‑risk launches, and more when timelines are tight.
How reliable is the schedule slip estimate?
It is a capacity-based approximation using team size, utilization, and efficiency. It captures directional impact well, but does not model critical path constraints, staffing changes, or parallel work. Re-run the estimate whenever scope or staffing changes.