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.
Both static and dynamic analysis across a real, named multi-OS list is materially stronger than a single-environment sandbox described only as 'broad support.'
Look for named, specific anti-evasion techniques and a real measured detection/catch-rate figure, not a generic 'advanced evasion detection' marketing claim.
Concrete turnaround numbers plus a stated burst/batch-scaling behavior; a vendor that can only quote a single-sample time without addressing burst load is weaker for real incident response.
ATT&CK mapping plus automatic threat-intel correlation is materially more actionable than a raw behavioral report requiring manual analyst interpretation.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Custom, golden-image detonation environments are a real differentiator against environment-aware malware; a fixed generic sandbox will simply miss these samples.
Automated closed-loop response is only safe with a credible, stated false-positive rate — probe this specifically, since a high FP rate combined with auto-block is operationally dangerous.
An explicit opt-out from third-party or cross-customer sample sharing matters materially for organizations analyzing proprietary or highly sensitive files.
Document/script-based malware is a major real-world infection vector; look for explicit, mature support rather than a vague claim of 'various file types supported.'
Look for pricing that doesn't penalize exactly the scenario where the tool is most valuable (a real incident requiring mass sample analysis) — a per-sample model with no burst accommodation creates a perverse cost spike during a crisis.
Strong answers describe real incident-time surge capacity with a customer example, not just routine steady-state throughput figures.
A false positive on legitimate business software with automated quarantine response can cause real business disruption — ask for a real accuracy figure and a fast correction workflow.
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from individual sample reports — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
Some regulated or highly sensitive environments require a genuinely air-gapped option — a vendor should clarify this explicitly rather than assuming cloud submission is universally acceptable.
Mobile malware analysis requires genuinely different detonation infrastructure than traditional PE/executable analysis — a vendor should give an honest depth comparison rather than implying uniform capability across all platforms.
Look for explicit tenant isolation guarantees, especially around sample-sharing/deduplication logic that could otherwise leak information about which other customers submitted the same sample.
A real, documented API is materially more useful for a mature security team building custom automation than being limited to a fixed list of pre-built integrations.