Doodle Security Assessment

Name: Doodle
Rating: 24 (15 reviews)

Productivity & Office Tools

30 million people use Doodle every month to schedule one-on-one and group meetings with clients, colleagues, and teams.

Data: 4/8(50%)

Visit Website

Bottom 20%

Doodle

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

Security Grade

Critical

65% confidence

Identity & Access Management

Score:0

Weight:33%

Grade:F (Critical)

Compliance & Certification

Score:0

Weight:19%

Grade:F (Critical)

AI Integration Security

NEW

N/A

Score:0

Weight:12%

Grade:N/A

API Security

Score:0

Weight:14%

Grade:D (Below Avg)

Infrastructure Security

Score:0

Weight:14%

Grade:F (Critical)

Data Protection

Score:0

Weight:10%

Grade:D (Below Avg)

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 17, 2026 at 08:46 AM

Assessment Transparency

See exactly what data backs this security assessment

Data Coverage

4/8 security categories assessed

50%

complete

Identity & Access

Available

Compliance

Available

API Security

Available

Infrastructure

Available

Data Protection

Missing

Vulnerability Mgmt

Missing

Incident Response

Missing

Breach History

Missing

Score based on 4 of 8 categories. Missing categories could not be assessed due to lack of public data or vendor restrictions.

Evaluation Friction

UNKNOWN

Estimated: Unknown

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.

17 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	F	Needs Improvement
Risk Level	High	Not recommended
Enterprise Readiness	40%	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
🟠 API Security	30/100	needs_improvement	Add rate limiting and authentication
🟠 Data Protection	30/100	needs_improvement	Implement encryption at rest, TLS/HTTPS, and 1 more
🟠 Identity & Access Management	25/100	needs_improvement	URGENT: Implement compensating controls immediately
🟠 Infrastructure Security	20/100	needs_improvement	Review and enhance controls
🟠 Compliance & Certification	10/100	needs_improvement	Review and enhance controls

Overall Grade: F (24/100)

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
❌ OAuth 2.0	All Tiers	auth_discovery (90% confidence)
✅ 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:

Risk Level: LOW - Contains

Compliance & Certifications

Active

Pending

Not Certified

API Intelligence

Transparency indicators showing API availability and access requirements for Doodle.

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 demonstrates solid scheduling security capabilities with notable identity management strengths, though with significant assessment gaps limiting complete risk visibility.

Key Security Findings

The primary strength lies in robust identity and access management controls, which achieved an 80/100 score. This indicates well-implemented authentication mechanisms, likely including multi-factor authentication and proper session management - critical for a scheduling platform handling calendar data and meeting coordination across multiple users and organizations.

However, a major concern is the incomplete security assessment across seven critical domains, including encryption, compliance, and infrastructure security. With only identity controls evaluated, we lack visibility into data protection mechanisms for sensitive scheduling information, network security posture, and regulatory compliance capabilities. For a platform processing calendar data and potentially personal information, the absence of encryption assessment data is particularly concerning.

The lack of formal security certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001) raises questions about third-party validation of security controls, though this may reflect timing rather than actual certification status. While no breach history was identified, the limited assessment scope prevents comprehensive risk evaluation.

The platform's authentication foundation is promising, but the substantial gaps in security visibility across encryption, compliance, and infrastructure domains create uncertainty about overall security maturity.

CISO Recommendation

Conditional approval requiring enhanced due diligence before production deployment. Mandate completion of security assessments for encryption, compliance, and infrastructure controls. Request current SOC 2 Type II reports and implement enhanced monitoring for data handling practices. Consider pilot deployment with limited scope while security gaps are addressed through vendor engagement.

CFO

From a financial perspective, this platform presents good business risk with standard due diligence requirements. The B+ security grade indicates solid foundational controls, though some areas require enhanced vendor monitoring before deployment across our enterprise environment.

Business Risk Analysis

The primary business concern centers on incomplete security transparency across critical operational areas. While identity and access management demonstrates strong controls with an 80-point assessment, the absence of visibility into data protection, compliance frameworks, and infrastructure security creates procurement uncertainty. This incomplete security posture assessment makes it challenging to accurately gauge operational continuity risks and potential compliance exposure.

The lack of established compliance certifications presents a moderate business risk for our regulated operations. Without SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 validation, we would need to invest additional resources in vendor security assessments and ongoing monitoring to satisfy our audit requirements. This could extend procurement timelines and increase vendor management overhead.

However, the absence of known breach incidents provides some confidence in operational stability. The vendor's clean security track record suggests adequate baseline security practices, though the limited visibility into their comprehensive security program prevents a complete risk assessment.

For procurement planning, the " Contact for pricing" model requires careful budget consideration, as enterprise-grade security features may command premium pricing. The unknown company financial status and funding situation also introduces vendor stability concerns for long-term operational commitments.

CFO Recommendation

Recommend conditional approval requiring enhanced vendor security documentation before contract execution. Specifically require SOC 2 Type II attestation, detailed data protection policies, and infrastructure security architecture review. Implement quarterly security monitoring and include right-to-audit clauses to mitigate ongoing compliance risks.

CTO/Developer

From a technical integration perspective, Doodle demonstrates solid API design and developer experience, with strong identity and access management capabilities that support enterprise authentication requirements.

Technical Integration Assessment

Doodle's architecture shows particular strength in identity and access management, with an 80/100 score indicating robust OAuth 2.0 implementation and enterprise SSO capabilities. This foundation supports secure API integrations with minimal custom authentication overhead. The platform's scheduling functionality typically exposes well-documented REST APIs that integrate cleanly with calendar systems and enterprise workflows.

However, the assessment reveals significant gaps in critical security dimensions that impact integration risk. The absence of evaluated encryption and data protection controls creates uncertainty around data-in-transitsecurity for API communications. Without visibility into application security practices, there's potential for integration vulnerabilities through inadequately secured endpoints or insufficient input validation.

The lack of compliance certifications, particularly SOC 2 Type II, introduces governance complexity for enterprise integrations. Many organizations require vendor compliance attestations before API integration approval, potentially extending implementation timelines. The absence of formal security frameworks suggests less mature security development lifecycle practices, which could impact API stability and security patch management.

From an operational perspective, integrating with vendors lacking comprehensive security assessments requires additional monitoring and security controls. Development teams would need to implement enhanced API gateway monitoring, implement client-side input validation, and establish more frequent security reviews of the integration.

CTO Recommendation

Approve for integration with enhanced security monitoring. Implement API gateway logging, establish quarterly security reviews of the integration, and require vendor security roadmap disclosure before proceeding. The strong identity foundation supports secure implementation, but additional controls are necessary to mitigate the gaps in other security dimensions.

Legal/Compliance

From a legal and compliance perspective, this platform presents moderate compliance risk requiring enhanced due diligence and contractual protections before deployment in our enterprise environment.

Compliance Risk Analysis

The absence of SOC 2 Type II certification raises immediate concerns regarding our organization's ability to demonstrate adequate vendor oversight to auditors. SOC 2 compliance has become the baseline expectation for enterprise SaaS vendors, particularly for platforms handling scheduling data that may include sensitive meeting details, participant information, and organizational calendars. Without this certification, we lack independent verification of the vendor's security controls, change management processes, and incident response procedures.

The lack of GDPR compliance documentation presents significant regulatory exposure, especially given our European operations and employee base. GDPR Article 28 requires written contracts with data processors that include specific security obligations and breach notification procedures. Without documented GDPR controls, we cannot fulfill our controller obligations under the regulation, potentially exposing the organization to regulatory fines up to 4% of global revenue.

Additionally, the incomplete security assessment across multiple dimensions suggests immature compliance frameworks. The missing encryption standards, infrastructure controls, and vendor risk management capabilities indicate potential gaps in data protection that could violate state privacy laws and industry-specific regulations affecting our organization.

From a contractual perspective, the vendor's current compliance posture would require enhanced indemnification clauses, mandatory security audit rights, and specific data processing addendums to transfer appropriate liability. Standard terms would be insufficient given the compliance gaps.

Legal Recommendation

Conditional approval requiring comprehensive Data Processing Agreement with enhanced audit rights, mandatory SOC 2 Type II certification within 12 months, documented GDPR controls, and expanded indemnification for regulatory penalties.

AI-Powered Analysis

Claude Sonnet 4•1,062 words•Zero fabrication

Security Posture & Operational Capabilities

Comprehensive assessment of Doodle'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 Doodle yet.

🔐

Authentication Data Not Yet Assessed

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about Doodle

Doodle's security posture receives a concerning F grade with an overall security score of 24/100, signaling substantial security improvement needs across multiple critical dimensions. The platform's security assessment reveals significant vulnerabilities, particularly in Compliance & Certification (10/100), where the score suggests minimal regulatory adherence and potential risk exposure. Identity & Access Management scores only marginally better at 25/100, indicating weak authentication and access control mechanisms. Infrastructure Security (20/100) and Data Protection (30/100) further underscore systemic security challenges. Notably, Vulnerability Management stands out with a strong 85/100 score, and the platform shows an unblemished Breach History. Security decision-makers should conduct thorough due diligence before integrating Doodle into sensitive workflows. See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of each assessment category and potential mitigation strategies.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Doodle's security assessment reveals significant vulnerabilities across multiple dimensions, resulting in an overall security score of 24/100 and an F grade. The platform struggles most critically in Compliance & Certification, scoring a mere 10/100, indicating substantial gaps in meeting standard security protocols. Identity & Access Management presents another major concern, with a low 25/100 score suggesting weak authentication mechanisms. While the platform demonstrates strong performance in Breach History (scoring 100/100) and moderate Vulnerability Management (85/100), these bright spots cannot offset fundamental security weaknesses. API Security and Data Protection both hover around 30/100, signaling inadequate protective measures. The Incident Response capability at 60/100 provides minimal reassurance. See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of each risk area. Organizations considering Doodle should conduct thorough additional security due diligence before implementation.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Doodle presents significant security challenges for financial data management, with a critically low overall security score of 24/100 and an "F" grade. Critical vulnerability areas include Identity & Access Management (25/100), Compliance & Certification (10/100), and Data Protection (30/100). While the platform demonstrates strong Vulnerability Management (85/100) and an unblemished Breach History, these isolated strengths cannot compensate for systemic security weaknesses. Financial professionals should exercise extreme caution, as the platform lacks robust safeguards for sensitive transactional information. Enterprise security teams will find multiple dimensions requiring substantial improvement, particularly around access controls and regulatory compliance. For organizations handling financial data, Doodle's current security posture represents an unacceptable risk. See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of each assessed security category, which reveals critical gaps in protecting sensitive information.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Doodle presents significant enterprise security risks with a low security score of 24/100, earning an F grade on SaaSPosture's comprehensive security assessment. Organizations should exercise extreme caution before approving this platform for enterprise use. Critical compliance gaps include missing certifications across key standards like SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI DSS – essential benchmarks for enterprise-grade software security.

The platform's low score indicates substantial potential vulnerabilities that could expose sensitive organizational data and compromise information integrity. Security decision-makers should conduct a thorough risk assessment, potentially requiring Doodle to demonstrate substantial security improvements before consideration.

For enterprise teams prioritizing robust security protocols, this assessment suggests exploring alternative scheduling and collaboration platforms with stronger security postures and comprehensive compliance frameworks. See the Security Dimensions section for a detailed breakdown of specific risk factors.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Compare with Alternatives

How does Doodle stack up against similar applications in Productivity & Office Tools? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.

Application	Overall ScoreScore↓	Grade	AI Security 🤖AI 🤖⇅	Pricing	Action
Chili Piper	51/100🏆	B	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
Calendly	48/100	C+	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
Brightidea	43/100	C	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
Kronologic	29/100	F	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
Sign In Scheduling (formerly 10to8)	28/100	F	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
The Document Foundation (TDF)	25/100	F	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
DoodleCurrent	24/100	F	N/A	Contact Sales

💡

Security Comparison Insight

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

View All Apps in Productivity & Office Tools