How we compare

Established vendors have real products, real engineering and real track record. We are not pretending otherwise. This page is about which layer you actually need, and where paying for the full enterprise stack is the wrong first move.

Two different layers

Quantum-safe readiness splits into an evidence layer and an enforcement layer. Vendors such as Thales, Entrust, IBM and the local specialists mostly sell the enforcement layer, which is hardware and platform heavy: hardware security modules, key management, PKI, network encryption, and the services to deploy them. That work is real and necessary, and eventually most organisations need some of it.

But the enforcement layer cannot start until you know what you have. That is the evidence layer, and for most mid-sized organisations it is where the work actually begins, and where the cost of doing nothing shows up first.

What you need	Enterprise vendor approach	What we do	Which you need first
Cryptographic discovery in code	Discovery tools, often bundled with a platform or delivered as an assessment by consultants.	Self-service repository scan with a cryptographic bill of materials, file and line evidence, and coverage limits stated. Free to try.	QuantumReady is designed for this layer.
Public endpoint readiness	Network encryption products that provide the capability.	A free measurement of what your public endpoints negotiate today, including whether post-quantum hybrid key exchange is in use.	QuantumReady measures this for you.
Cryptographic inventory and a CBOM	Platform-generated inventory, usually tied to their key management or discovery product.	A portable inventory you own, exportable as JSON and CSV, with owners, waves and status tracked.	Either works. Ours is portable.
Governance, policy and a migration plan	Delivered through professional services engagements.	Generated in the workbench: policy, milestones, waves, agility gaps and vendor register, exportable as a document.	QuantumReady produces the first draft.
Evidence for a customer or auditor	Reports from the platform, or consultant-authored documents.	A report pack with findings, evidence, limitations and a shareable link.	Either. Ours is the core of the product.
Hardware security modules	Their strength. Certified devices with post-quantum roadmap, key lifecycle and crypto-agility.	We do not sell or support hardware.	Them, when you need keys protected to a certified standard.
PQC-ready PKI and certificate authority	Their strength, with enterprise integrations.	We inventory certificates and flag what needs re-issuance. We are not a CA.	Them.
Quantum key distribution and quantum entropy	Their strength, and relevant to Singapore's national quantum-safe network work.	Out of scope. We will tell you when a requirement genuinely calls for it.	Them, and only when justified.
Enterprise deployment at scale	Their strength: integration, support, procurement credibility.	Deliberately lightweight. Self-service, software only.	Depends on your size.

Who we are for

Technology suppliers, financial services vendors and mid-sized organisations that need to answer quantum-readiness questions from customers, banks or government, without starting an enterprise transformation programme.

Who we are not for

If you need certified HSMs, a post-quantum PKI, network encryption appliances or QKD, you need a hardware vendor and probably a systems integrator. We will say so rather than sell you something adjacent.

On price

We publish our starting prices and we do not claim to know what anyone else charges. Enterprise platforms are priced through quotes that reflect hardware, integrations and support, and for some organisations that is the right purchase. Compare the scopes, not just the numbers.

How this compares to free and open source scanners

Cryptographic discovery is not a new idea, and several free tools do parts of it well. Being honest about which parts is more useful than claiming to replace them. The comparisons below describe product categories and publicly documented capabilities rather than independent benchmark results, and we invite you to verify anything that matters to you.

Category	Examples	Where they are strong	Where we differ
Software composition and CVE scanning	Trivy, Grype, Syft, OWASP Dependency-Check	They win outright here. Known vulnerabilities in dependencies and container operating system packages, with huge maintained databases.	We do not scan for CVEs at all. We report which cryptographic libraries and algorithms are present and what that means for quantum risk. Run both.
Static code analysis	Semgrep, CodeQL	Deeper language coverage, whole program dataflow analysis, and a large rule community. They can follow a value from source to sink, which pattern matching cannot.	We trade depth for a crypto specific opinion: classification against the quantum model, a recommended replacement per algorithm, and a score. We also parse eleven language families, so a call is read rather than only matched, and a cipher we cannot resolve is named as a record instead of guessed. Semgrep rules for cryptography exist and are good, but they do not produce a quantum readiness position.
Cryptography discovery, closest to us	IBM CBOMkit, cdxgen, and the CycloneDX tooling family	CBOMkit is credible and in some areas deeper than us, including reading compiled bytecode rather than source, which we cannot do.	We add the quantum layer on top: misuse detection, post-quantum signals, the layered merge across source, artifacts and images, the Singapore mapping, and an evidence report a non-engineer can read.
Secret detection	gitleaks, trufflehog	Entropy analysis and a very large pattern set for credentials, with git history scanning.	We flag hardcoded key material and credentials only where it is cryptographically relevant, and we do not scan history. Use a dedicated secret scanner.
Endpoint TLS scanning	testssl.sh, sslyze, sslscan, nmap ssl-enum-ciphers, SSL Labs, Mozilla Observatory	Far more protocol detail than us: full cipher enumeration, certificate chain validation, vulnerability checks, and grading. Free and excellent.	We report the post-quantum key exchange position specifically, which most of these do not, and we run partial probes and completed TLS sessions ourselves so it works where the hosted scanner can. For deep TLS auditing, use them.
Post-quantum test tooling	Open Quantum Safe, liboqs test harnesses	Reference implementations and correctness testing of the algorithms themselves.	Different job. They test an implementation; we find where your estate depends on algorithms that will break.

The honest summary

If you already run Trivy for dependencies and SSLyze for TLS, keep them. We are not a replacement for either. What no combination of free tools gives you today is the joined up answer:

One cryptographic bill of materials that merges what your source declares with what actually shipped inside the built artifact and the container image.
A quantum specific classification with a recommended replacement for every algorithm found.
Misuse detection, since a correct algorithm used badly is often worse than an old one.
Post-quantum readiness as a positive signal, not just the absence of old algorithms.
A report and a migration plan a customer, auditor or procurement team can actually read.
The whole thing runnable offline, with only findings leaving your network.

Why the evidence layer comes first

If you cannot yet answer "where is our cryptography, and which of it is quantum vulnerable", then buying hardware will not answer it. Get the inventory and the plan first. That is a small, bounded piece of work, and it makes every subsequent hardware conversation shorter and cheaper, because you will know exactly what you are buying and why.

Companies named on this page are referenced for factual comparison of product categories. We are not affiliated with them, we have not audited their products, and descriptions are generalised across the category. Verify any vendor claim directly with the vendor.