AnonymousSign in
Start from a neutral baseline and add what matters to you. Criteria are labeled by source — the platform baseline is architecture-neutral; buyer-contributed criteria are shown separately.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
TEE portability across hardware vendors matters for avoiding lock-in; look for a stated abstraction layer or explicit per-TEE rewrite requirements, not a single-vendor-only claim.
Attestation is the whole point of confidential computing — look for a concrete, independently-verifiable attestation chain (hardware-rooted), not a vendor-asserted 'trust us, it's confidential' claim.
TEE overhead and memory-size limits are real practical constraints; look for measured figures on realistic workloads and explicit disclosure of enclave memory ceilings.
TEEs have a real history of side-channel vulnerabilities; a credible vendor addresses this directly with a patching track record, not silence about known hardware-level risks.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Multi-party confidential computation is the highest-value use case; look for a concrete, named customer example rather than only single-tenant 'protect your own cloud workload' scenarios.
Look for a specific, honest effort characterization — 'lift and shift' claims sometimes hide significant required changes (I/O handling, library compatibility inside the enclave).
Look for integration with existing KMS/HSM investment rather than a parallel, TEE-only key management silo that fragments key governance.
Multi-cloud confidential computing support avoids cloud lock-in for this specific workload class — look for explicit multi-cloud coverage, not implicit single-cloud assumptions.
Confidential computing often carries a real premium over standard compute — ask for the specific cost delta rather than accepting a vague 'minimal additional cost' claim.
Given TEE technologies have a real history of disclosed vulnerabilities, ask for a specific, tested incident-response process rather than a hypothetical assurance that the technology is inherently secure.
Given the early state of this market, a real production reference (versus only pilot/lab deployments) is a meaningful differentiator — press for specifics if the vendor only offers vague adoption claims.
TEE opacity is a genuine operational challenge for developers — ask for a specific answer on how debugging/troubleshooting actually works in practice, not just a description of the security benefits of opacity.
Look for genuine CI/CD integration; a separate manual deployment process for confidential workloads creates real friction and inconsistency with the rest of the customer's DevOps practice.
Confidential computing's core guarantee (data never visible in plaintext outside the enclave) creates genuine backup/DR complexity — ask for a specific mechanism rather than assuming standard backup practices apply unchanged.
Ask for a specific, named regulated use case and real customer, not a generic claim that confidential computing 'helps with compliance' — the actual regulatory acceptance of TEE-based processing varies by jurisdiction and framework.
Given the technology-specific nature of different TEE implementations (SGX vs SEV-SNP vs Nitro Enclaves), ask for a concrete answer on portability rather than assuming a written-once-runs-everywhere claim holds in practice.