Haptik Security Assessment
AI & Machine Learning
Customer care chat on your website, mobile app and messaging channels, using AI to lighten the load on your live agents via one seamless system.
9-Dimension Security Framework
Identity & Access Management
Compliance & Certification
AI Integration Security
NEWAPI Security
Infrastructure Security
Data Protection
Vulnerability Management
Breach History
Incident Response
AI Integration Security Assessment (9th Dimension)
Assess whether SaaS applications are safe for AI agent integration using Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) standards. Identify Shadow AI risks before they become breaches and make safer AI tool decisions than your competitors.
Last updated: January 16, 2026 at 07:13 AM
Assessment Transparency
See exactly what data backs this security assessment
Data Coverage
6/8 security categories assessed
Score based on 6 of 8 categories. Missing categories could not be assessed due to lack of public data or vendor restrictions.
Evaluation Friction
Evaluation friction estimates how long it typically takes to fully evaluate this vendor's security practices, from initial contact to complete assessment.
Transparency indicators show data completeness and vendor accessibility
AI Integration Security
🔒 9th DimensionAssess whether Haptik is safe for AI agent integration. Identify Shadow AI risks before they become breaches using Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) standards.
AI Readiness
Infrastructure for AI integration
AI Security
Safety controls for AI agents
Comprehensive Security Analysis
In-depth assessment with detailed recommendations
Security Analysis
Executive Summary
| Metric | Value | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Security Grade | D+ | Needs Improvement |
| Risk Level | High | Not recommended |
| Enterprise Readiness | 45% | Gaps Exist |
| Critical Gaps | 0 | None |
Security Assessment
| Category | Score | Status | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🟢 Breach History | 100/100 | excellent | Maintain current controls |
| 🟡 Vulnerability Management | 85/100 | good | Maintain current controls |
| 🟠 API Security | 60/100 | needs_improvement | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟠 Incident Response | 60/100 | needs_improvement | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟠 Data Protection | 40/100 | needs_improvement | Implement encryption at rest, TLS/HTTPS, and 1 more |
| 🟠 Identity & Access Management | 35/100 | needs_improvement | URGENT: Implement compensating controls immediately |
| 🟠 Infrastructure Security | 30/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
| 🟠 Compliance & Certification | 10/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
Overall Grade: D+ (38/100)
Critical Security Gaps
| Gap | Severity | Business Impact | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🟢 No dedicated security documentation page | LOW | Extended due diligence process | Request security whitepaper or public audit reports |
Total Gaps Identified: 1 | Critical/High Priority: 0
Compliance Status
| Framework | Status | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| ISO 27001 | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| GDPR | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| HIPAA | ❓ Unknown | Verify Status |
| PCI DSS | ❓ Unknown | Verify Status |
Warning: No compliance certifications verified. Extensive due diligence required.
Operational Excellence
| Metric | Status | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Status Page | ❌ Not Found | N/A |
| Documentation Quality | ✅ 8/10 | No SDKs |
| SLA Commitment | ✅ Published | Formal SLA available |
| API Versioning | ✅ Yes | Breaking changes managed |
| Support Channels | ℹ️ 2 channels | Phone, Chat |
Operational Facts Extracted: 8 data points from operational_maturity enrichment
Integration Requirements
| Aspect | Details | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Setup Time | 3-5 days (manual setup required) | Estimated deployment timeline |
| Known Issues | Manual user provisioning may be required, Limited API automation capabilities, No automated user lifecycle management, Additional security controls needed | Implementation considerations |
Security Incident History
| Status | Details |
|---|---|
| ✅ No Known Breaches | No security incidents found in public breach databases |
Note: Clean security record based on public breach intelligence sources
⚠️ Inherent Risk Consideration
Data Sensitivity: This application stores sensitive data:
Risk Level: LOW - Contains
Compliance & Certifications
AI Integration Security Assessment
Industry-first assessment evaluating whether Haptik is safe and ready for AI agent integration. Covers AI security controls and readiness infrastructure for Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP).
AI Integration Security
Industry-first assessment for AI agent safety
✅Excellent Security Features
- ●To earn our customer's trust, Haptik demonstrates strong commitment towards privacy, security, compliance and transparency. This includes compliance with General Data Protection Regulations according to EU data protection requirements.
- ●One can also set up webhooks by providing the Webhook URL and enabling the Webhook and putting Email IDs below it.
- ●Strong GDPR and CCPA compliance commitment with privacy-by-design approach
- ●Role-based access control with Admin/Team Lead/Agent hierarchy
- ●Webhook support for event notifications
⚠️Security Gaps & Recommendations
- ●No oauth scopes
- ●No token expiration
- ●No token rotation
- ●No training opt out
- ●No read only tokens
- ●No audit logging
- ●No ai attribution
- ●No rate limiting
- ●No soc2 certified
- ●No security program
AI Integration Security evaluates whether Haptik is safe for AI agent access. This assessment considers authentication strength, access controls, observability capabilities, and data privacy protections when APIs are accessed by AI systems like Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, or custom AI agents.
AI Readiness Assessment
Evaluates readiness for AI agent integration
Official or community MCP server support
API docs, SDKs, code examples
API reference, auth flows, error handling
MCP Server Available (With Warnings)
community⚠️ Only high-risk MCP servers found - not recommended
Haptik has MCP server support, but with security concerns.
💡Recommendations
- →❌ Poor AI readiness - not recommended for AI workflows
AI Readiness measures whether Haptikprovides the infrastructure and developer resources necessary for secure AI agent integration. High readiness indicates official MCP server support, comprehensive API documentation, and developer-friendly tools.
API Intelligence
Transparency indicators showing API availability and access requirements for Haptik.
API Intelligence
API intelligence structure found but no operations extracted. May require manual review.
Incomplete API Intelligence
Our automated extraction found API documentation but couldn't extract specific operations. This may require manual review or vendor assistance.
View Vendor DocumentationAI-Powered Stakeholder Decision Analysis
LLM-generated security perspectives tailored to CISO, CFO, CTO, and Legal stakeholder needs. All analysis is grounded in verified API data with zero fabrication.
Security Posture & Operational Capabilities
Comprehensive assessment of Haptik's security posture, operational maturity, authentication capabilities, security automation APIs, and breach intelligence.
Operational Maturity
Support, SLAs, and documentation quality
Support Channels
Documentation Quality
80% • ExcellentSecurity Automation APIs
Programmatic user management, data operations, and security controls
No Known Breaches
Haptik has no publicly disclosed security breaches in our database.
Compare with Alternatives
How does Haptik stack up against similar applications in AI & Machine Learning? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.
| Application | Overall ScoreScore↓ | Grade | AI Security 🤖AI 🤖⇅ | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
56/100🏆 | B+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
49/100 | C+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
39/100 | D+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
HaptikCurrent | 38/100 | D+ | 69.2/100 | |
36/100 | D+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
28/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView | |
23/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView |
Security Comparison Insight
6 alternative(s) have higher overall security scores. Review the comparison to understand security tradeoffs for your specific requirements.