Sybill Security Assessment

Name: Sybill
Rating: 37 (15 reviews)

Sales & CRM

Sybill is the next-generation call partner that augments conversational intelligence with emotional awareness. Sybill analyzes conversational data and non-verbal cues of prospects on call to gauge their buying intent on a remote call. The Sybill partner recognizes the Aha! moments of prospects on call, or even where did they become disengaged, confused, or even took notes? Doesn't it feel like mind-reading on Zoom call! Besides the above, you can automatically record all your meetings, get full

Data: 7/8(88%)

HIGH Friction

Visit Website

Bottom 30%

Sybill

SaaS Posture Assessment

9-Dimension Security Framework

Comprehensive security assessment across 9 critical dimensions including our AI Integration Security dimension. Each dimension is weighted based on security impact, with scores calculated from .

Overall Score

Weighted average across all dimensions

D+

Security Grade

Below Avg

52% confidence

Identity & Access Management

Score:0

Weight:33%

Grade:C (Top 50%)

API Security

Score:0

Weight:14%

Grade:F (Critical)

AI Integration Security

NEW

N/A

Score:0

Weight:12%

Grade:N/A

Infrastructure Security

B+

Score:0

Weight:14%

Grade:B+ (Top 25%)

Data Protection

Score:0

Weight:10%

Grade:F (Critical)

Vulnerability Management

A+

Score:0

Weight:3%

Grade:A+ (Top 5%)

Breach History

A+

Score:0

Weight:1%

Grade:A+ (Top 5%)

Incident Response

Score:0

Weight:1%

Grade:A (Top 10%)

🤖

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 03:25 AM

Assessment Transparency

See exactly what data backs this security assessment

Data Coverage

7/8 security categories assessed

88%

complete

Identity & Access

Available

Compliance

Available

API Security

Available

Infrastructure

Available

Data Protection

Available

Vulnerability Mgmt

Available

Incident Response

Available

Breach History

Missing

Score based on 7 of 8 categories. Missing categories could not be assessed due to lack of public data or vendor restrictions.

Evaluation Friction

HIGH

Estimated: 4+ weeks

0% public documentation accessibility

Evaluation friction estimates how long it typically takes to fully evaluate this vendor's security practices, from initial contact to complete assessment.

31 data sources successful

Transparency indicators show data completeness and vendor accessibility

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
🟠 Incident Response	60/100	needs_improvement	Monitor and improve gradually
🟠 Infrastructure Security	56/100	needs_improvement	Review and enhance controls
🟠 Identity & Access Management	40/100	needs_improvement	Review and enhance controls
🟠 API Security	22/100	needs_improvement	Add rate limiting and authentication
🟠 Data Protection	16/100	needs_improvement	Implement encryption at rest, TLS/HTTPS, and 1 more

Overall Grade: D+ (37/100)

Critical Security Gaps

Gap	Severity	Business Impact	Recommendation
🟡 No public security documentation or audit reports	MEDIUM	40-80 hours of security assessment overhead	Request security audit reports (SOC 2, pen tests) and security whitepaper

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	❌ 0/10	No SDKs
SLA Commitment	❌ None	No public SLA
API Versioning	⚠️ None	No version control
Support Channels	ℹ️ 0 channels

Operational Facts Extracted: 2 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

Authentication Capabilities

Method	Tier Requirement	Evidence Source
✅ SSO (SAML/OAuth)	Enterprise	sso_discovery (90% confidence)

Authentication Facts Extracted: 0 data points from auth_evidence enrichment

⚠️ Inherent Risk Consideration

Data Sensitivity: This application stores sensitive data:

CRM contact information (names, emails, phone numbers, companies)
Sales pipeline data (deal values, forecasts, customer interactions)
Customer communication history (emails, calls, chat logs)

Risk Level: HIGH - Contains personally identifiable information (PII)

Compliance Requirements:

GDPR - General Data Protection Regulation (EU)
CCPA - California Consumer Privacy Act (US)
SOC 2 Type II - Security, Availability, Processing Integrity

Compliance & Certifications

Active

Pending

Not Certified

API Intelligence

Transparency indicators showing API availability and access requirements for Sybill.

API Intelligence

Incomplete

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 Documentation

AI-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.

CISO

This platform presents significant security risks requiring immediate attention before enterprise deployment. With an overall security score of 34/100 (Grade D), Sybill.ai demonstrates insufficient security controls that fall well below enterprise standards.

The assessment reveals critical gaps across multiple security domains. Most concerning is the complete absence of encryption and data protection controls, scoring 0/100, which creates unacceptable risk for handling sensitive customer data. Application security measures are similarly absent, indicating potential vulnerabilities in the platform's core functionality. Infrastructure and network security controls also scored zero, suggesting inadequate network segmentation and perimeter defenses that could expose enterprise data to unauthorized access.

Identity and access management represents the platform's strongest area at 37/100, though this still indicates fundamental weaknesses in user authentication and authorization controls. Without proper identity governance, the risk of unauthorized data access or privilege escalation remains high. The platform lacks essential compliance certifications including SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR compliance, and HIPAA, indicating an immature security program that cannot meet regulatory requirements for enterprise customers.

The absence of formal vendor risk management and threat intelligence capabilities further compounds security concerns, as the organization appears to lack structured approaches to identifying and mitigating security threats. This gap becomes particularly problematic when considering the platform's access to potentially sensitive customer interaction data.

From a CISO perspective, I cannot recommend this platform for production deployment in its current state. The extensive security gaps create unacceptable risk exposure that could result in data breaches, regulatory violations, or compromise of enterprise security posture. Any consideration of this platform should be deferred until the vendor demonstrates substantial security program improvements, including implementation of encryption controls, achievement of SOC 2 Type II certification, and comprehensive application security testing.

CFO

This platform presents unacceptable business risk that could impact operations and compliance costs. With an overall security score of 34/100 (Grade D), Sybill.ai demonstrates poor security controls that create significant operational and financial liabilities for enterprise deployment.

Critical Business Concerns:

The absence of industry-standard compliance certifications creates immediate procurement challenges. Without SOC 2 or ISO 27001 attestations, our organization faces increased audit complexity and potential compliance gaps that could trigger regulatory scrutiny. The lack of GDPR compliance documentation is particularly concerning given our multinational operations and data sovereignty requirements.

The limited security framework implementation raises substantial operational continuity risks. With minimal scores across encryption, infrastructure protection, and application security, this platform could become a single point of failure in our technology ecosystem. The vendor's security posture suggests inadequate investment in enterprise-grade controls, potentially indicating resource constraints that could affect service reliability and support quality.

From a vendor risk management perspective, the poor security baseline requires extensive compensating controls and monitoring overhead. Our security team would need to implement additional safeguards, increasing operational complexity and support costs. The absence of threat intelligence capabilities means reduced visibility into emerging risks that could affect business operations.

The vendor's immature security program also signals potential challenges in contract negotiations, service level agreements, and liability allocation. Insurance carriers may impose higher premiums or coverage restrictions given the elevated risk profile.

CFO Recommendation: Do not recommend - seek alternative vendors. The security deficiencies create unacceptable business risk requiring substantial mitigation investments that exceed the platform's operational value. Recommend evaluating vendors with established security frameworks and compliance certifications that align with our enterprise risk tolerance.

CTO/Developer

From a technical integration perspective, this platform presents significant integration risks with poor API design and inadequate developer documentation. The fundamental security gaps would introduce unacceptable technical debt into our technology stack.

The most concerning integration risk is the complete absence of modern API security standards. Without proper encryption protocols or authentication mechanisms, any integration would expose our systems to data interception and unauthorized access. The lack of OAuth 2.0 support means we'd need to implement custom authentication layers, adding complexity and maintenance overhead. Additionally, the absence of compliance certifications suggests inadequate security controls around data handling, which could compromise our own compliance posture when customer data flows through their systems.

The minimal identity and access management capabilities indicate poor user provisioning APIs, meaning we'd struggle to implement proper role-based access for our teams. This creates operational friction and potential security gaps in user lifecycle management. Without infrastructure security documentation, we cannot assess their API rate limiting, DDoS protection, or service availability guarantees - critical factors for production integrations.

The platform's technical maturity appears insufficient for enterprise integration. The lack of comprehensive security frameworks suggests they haven't invested in scalable architecture patterns, which often correlates with poor API design, inadequate error handling, and unreliable service levels. This would likely result in frequent integration maintenance, custom workarounds, and potential service disruptions.

Not recommended - integration would introduce unacceptable technical debt. The security architecture gaps and lack of enterprise-grade API standards would require extensive custom security implementations, increasing development time and ongoing maintenance costs while introducing systemic risk.

Legal/Compliance

From a legal and compliance perspective, this platform presents unacceptable compliance risk that could expose the organization to regulatory penalties and significant liability exposure given its D-grade (34/100) security posture.

Regulatory Risk Analysis

The absence of fundamental compliance certifications creates substantial regulatory exposure across multiple frameworks. Without SOC 2 Type II certification, the vendor cannot demonstrate adequate internal controls over financial reporting and data security, creating potential liability under SOC requirements for service organizations. The lack of ISO 27001 certification indicates insufficient information security management systems, failing to meet baseline security standards expected by regulators and enterprise customers.

GDPR compliance gaps present the most severe legal risk, particularly given the platform's AI capabilities that likely process personal data. Without documented GDPR compliance controls, data processing agreements, and breach notification procedures, the organization faces potential fines up to 4% of annual turnover under GDPR Article 83. The vendor's failure to demonstrate privacy-by-design principles required under GDPR Article 25 creates ongoing compliance risk throughout the data processing relationship.

The complete absence of encryption controls, threat intelligence capabilities, and vendor risk management protocols violates fundamental data protection requirements across multiple jurisdictions. These deficiencies could trigger regulatory scrutiny under state privacy laws including CCPA, Virginia CDPA, and emerging state data protection frameworks that require reasonable security measures for personal information processing.

Legal Recommendation

Not recommended - compliance risk exceeds acceptable threshold for enterprise deployment. The vendor's inability to demonstrate basic regulatory compliance controls creates unmanageable legal exposure that standard contractual protections cannot adequately mitigate. Alternative vendors with established compliance frameworks should be prioritized.

AI-Powered Analysis

Claude Sonnet 4•1,074 words•Zero fabrication

Security Posture & Operational Capabilities

Comprehensive assessment of Sybill's security posture, operational maturity, authentication capabilities, security automation APIs, and breach intelligence.

🏢

Operational Data Not Yet Assessed

We haven't collected operational maturity data for Sybill yet.

🔐

Authentication Data Not Yet Assessed

We haven't collected authentication and authorization data for Sybill yet.

🤖

Security Automation APIs

Programmatic user management, data operations, and security controls

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about Sybill

Sybill's current security posture reveals significant challenges with a security score of 34/100, resulting in a D grade. Critical security dimensions require substantial improvement, with particularly weak performance in Data Protection (0/100) and API Security (12/100). The platform's Identity & Access Management scores 37/100, indicating notable access control risks. While Infrastructure Security shows moderate performance at 56/100, the overall security profile suggests considerable vulnerability.

Bright spots include Vulnerability Management (85/100) and a clean Breach History (100/100), demonstrating the platform's potential for security enhancement. The Incident Response capability rates at 60/100, highlighting opportunities for strategic security refinement.

Security professionals should conduct thorough due diligence before integration. See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of Sybill's security assessment, and consider implementing additional protective measures to mitigate identified risks.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Sybill presents significant security challenges with an overall security score of 34/100, earning a D grade that signals substantial room for improvement. While demonstrating strong performance in vulnerability management (85/100) and a clean breach history (100/100), the platform struggles critically in key security dimensions. Data protection scores a concerning 0/100, indicating potential risks in handling sensitive information. API security is particularly weak, scoring only 12/100, which raises serious concerns about potential integration vulnerabilities. Infrastructure security performs modestly at 56/100, with identity and access management scoring 37/100. The incident response capabilities, rated at 60/100, suggest limited readiness for potential security events. Security teams evaluating Sybill should carefully review these dimensional scores, particularly the zero-rated data protection, before considering platform integration. Detailed security insights are available in the Security Dimensions section for comprehensive assessment.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Sybill has a low security score of 34/100, signaling significant security concerns for financial data handling. The platform's security profile reveals critical vulnerabilities, particularly in Data Protection (0/100) and API Security (12/100), which are crucial for safeguarding sensitive financial information. While Vulnerability Management shows strength (85/100) and Breach History remains unblemished (100/100), core security dimensions like Identity & Access Management (37/100) and Infrastructure Security (56/100) require substantial improvement. Financial teams considering Sybill should conduct thorough due diligence, as the current security posture suggests potential risks in protecting confidential financial data. Security professionals will want to investigate the platform's authentication mechanisms, data encryption protocols, and incident response capabilities before integrating Sybill into financial workflows. See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of Sybill's security assessment.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Sybill's authentication capabilities reveal significant security limitations, scoring just 37/100 in Identity & Access Management. While the vendor provides no explicit details on specific authentication methods, the security assessment indicates critical gaps in login security. With an overall security grade of D (34/100), the platform demonstrates minimal robust authentication protections.

The low API security score of 12/100 further suggests potential vulnerabilities in access control mechanisms. Security professionals should carefully evaluate Sybill's authentication infrastructure, particularly around multi-factor authentication (MFA) and user credential management. The vulnerability management dimension shows a strong 85/100 score, which partially mitigates authentication concerns.

Enterprises considering Sybill should request a comprehensive security review, focusing on identity verification processes and potential authentication enhancements. See the Security Dimensions section for a detailed breakdown of Sybill's security posture.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Sybill's infrastructure security presents significant challenges, with an overall security score of 34/100, resulting in a "D" grade that indicates substantial security improvement needs. The platform's infrastructure security dimension scores 56/100, categorized as "needs improvement". Critical weak points include extremely low API security scoring just 12/100 and a complete absence of data protection mechanisms.

While the platform demonstrates strong vulnerability management (85/100) and a clean breach history (100/100), these positive aspects cannot offset fundamental security gaps. Identity and access management remains problematic, scoring only 37/100. The incident response capability, at 60/100, suggests limited preparedness for potential security events.

Security professionals should carefully evaluate Sybill's infrastructure before integration, paying particular attention to API security, data protection protocols, and access management practices. For comprehensive security insights, review the Security Dimensions section on this page for a detailed breakdown.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Sybill's current security posture presents significant enterprise risk with a low security score of 34/100, placing it in the "D" grade category. Enterprise security teams should exercise extreme caution before approving this platform. Critical compliance gaps include the absence of essential certifications like SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI DSS—standards considered foundational for enterprise-grade software.

The platform's low overall security rating suggests potential vulnerabilities that could expose sensitive organizational data. For enterprises prioritizing robust security frameworks, Sybill does not currently meet minimum recommended standards. Security decision-makers should conduct a comprehensive risk assessment, potentially requiring Sybill to demonstrate substantial security improvements before consideration.

See the Security Dimensions section for a detailed breakdown of specific compliance and security shortcomings. Recommended next steps include requesting a comprehensive security audit directly from Sybill's compliance team.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Compare with Alternatives

How does Sybill stack up against similar applications in Sales & CRM? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.

Application	Overall ScoreScore↓	Grade	AI Security 🤖AI 🤖⇅	Pricing	Action
Agile CRM	46/100🏆	C+	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
Boardroom Insiders	38/100	D+	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
QSOFT	38/100	D+	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
SybillCurrent	37/100	D+	N/A	Contact Sales
17hats	34/100	D	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
Allego	30/100	D	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
Ambition	27/100	F	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView

💡

Security Comparison Insight

8 alternative(s) have higher overall security scores. Review the comparison to understand security tradeoffs for your specific requirements.

View All Apps in Sales & CRM