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.
iOS's sandboxing limits certain dynamic techniques compared to Android — look for an honest per-platform breakdown of what each analysis type can actually see, not a single unified claim.
MASVS is the accepted mobile security standard; look for named, mapped coverage and exportable evidence, not a generic vulnerability list requiring manual re-mapping.
These are the most common real mobile app findings; look for specific detection classes named, not a vague 'data security scanning' claim.
Look for SDK-embeddable RASP that ships inside the app itself, not just pre-release scanning that says nothing about runtime attack resistance in production.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Look for automated per-build scanning with a stated turnaround and file/line-level findings — periodic manual scanning misses vulnerabilities introduced between scan cycles.
Third-party SDKs are a major, often-invisible attack surface in mobile apps — look for explicit SDK inventory and risk-flagging, not just first-party code analysis.
Mobile backends are frequently tested less than the app itself, since testers need to reverse-engineer client-side API calls first — look for this specific capability, not just client-side analysis.
App-store privacy-label mismatches cause real rejections/removals; look for verification that declared data collection matches actual app behavior, not just generic security scanning.
Look for transparent, predictable scaling economics tied to realistic app-portfolio growth and release frequency, not just a per-scan price that becomes expensive at real CI/CD scale.
Strong answers describe real emergency-response support with a customer example, not just pre-release scanning capability.
Cross-platform framework code often confuses tools built primarily for native binary analysis — ask for a specific answer on hybrid-framework support, not an assumption that native-focused analysis extends cleanly.
Trend-over-time reporting across releases is a distinct capability from a single scan report — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
A high false-positive rate creates real developer alert fatigue and erodes trust in the tool — ask for a real, customer-validated accuracy figure and a persistent suppression mechanism.
Look for genuine integration into a unified risk view; a standalone mobile dashboard disconnected from the broader AppSec/VM picture creates real reconciliation burden.
Actionable, specific remediation guidance (not just a finding description) materially speeds real fixes — ask for a customer-validated time-to-fix improvement figure.
Supply-chain integrity for the app's own release process (signing key security, tamper detection) is a distinct concern from vulnerability scanning of the app's code — ask for a specific answer on this scope.