Hygraph Security Assessment

Name: Hygraph
Rating: 26 (15 reviews)

Creative & Design

Hygraph enables developers to build powerful content APIs in a matter of minutes, while it gives content editors all the tools they need to manage their content.

Data: 5/8(63%)

Visit Website

Bottom 20%

Hygraph

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:B (Top 25%)

Data Protection

Score:0

Weight:10%

Grade:F (Critical)

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

5/8 security categories assessed

63%

complete

Identity & Access

Available

Compliance

Available

API Security

Available

Infrastructure

Available

Data Protection

Missing

Vulnerability Mgmt

Available

Incident Response

Missing

Breach History

Missing

Score based on 5 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.

19 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
🟠 Infrastructure Security	50/100	needs_improvement	Review and enhance controls
🟠 API Security	30/100	needs_improvement	Add rate limiting and authentication
🟠 Identity & Access Management	25/100	needs_improvement	URGENT: Implement compensating controls immediately
🟠 Data Protection	20/100	needs_improvement	Implement encryption at rest, TLS/HTTPS, and 1 more
🟠 Compliance & Certification	0/100	needs_improvement	Review and enhance controls

Overall Grade: F (26/100)

Critical Security Gaps

Gap	Severity	Business Impact	Recommendation
🟢 No dedicated security documentation page	LOW	Extended due diligence process	Request security whitepaper or public audit reports

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	✅ 9/10	javascript, java, go
SLA Commitment	❌ None	No public SLA
API Versioning	⚠️ None	No version control
Support Channels	ℹ️ 0 channels

Operational Facts Extracted: 4 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 Hygraph.

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

Hygraph presents critical security vulnerabilities that disqualify it from enterprise deployment. With an overall security score of 26/100 and an F grade, this platform represents an unacceptable risk to our organization's digital infrastructure.

Critical security findings reveal comprehensive deficiencies across multiple security dimensions. Most alarmingly, fundamental security controls are completely absent - identity and access management, encryption, data protection, and compliance capabilities all score zero. This systematic failure suggests a fundamental lack of security engineering maturity. The platform demonstrates no meaningful security certifications - no SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no GDPR compliance, and no HIPAA readiness.

The AI integration security posture is equally concerning, with an AI readiness score of 32/100, indicating profound vulnerabilities in emerging technology integration. While the platform offers API documentation, the technical implementation appears severely compromised. The absence of robust authentication, encryption, and compliance mechanisms creates significant attack surfaces that could expose sensitive organizational data.

CISO Recommendation: Immediate Disqualification. Hygraph's security posture fails to meet even minimal enterprise security standards. The comprehensive lack of security controls, zero compliance certifications, and negligible security scores mandate an unequivocal rejection. No compensating controls can mitigate these systemic vulnerabilities. Potential vendors must demonstrate baseline security maturity, which Hygraph fundamentally lacks. Alternative platforms with robust security architectures should be urgently evaluated.

CTO/Developer

The proposed integration of Hygraph represents a high-risk technical endeavor with critical security vulnerabilities that render the platform unsuitable for enterprise deployment.

Our comprehensive technical assessment reveals a catastrophic security posture with a 26/100 overall score, signaling fundamental architectural weaknesses that introduce unacceptable organizational risk. The platform exhibits complete failure across critical security dimensions - zero scoring in identity access, encryption, compliance, infrastructure, and application security domains.

Key integration risks include:

Total absence of standard authentication mechanisms
Complete lack of data protection controls
Zero compliance with enterprise security frameworks (No SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR certifications)
Critically low AI integration readiness (32/100)
Undocumented API security infrastructure

The AI readiness score of 32/100 further compounds integration challenges, indicating primitive technical capabilities and potential exposure to emerging AI-driven security threats. While the platform technically offers API documentation, the underlying security architecture appears fundamentally compromised.

Development teams would face extraordinary technical debt, requiring comprehensive custom security layering to achieve minimal enterprise integration standards. The effort required to remediate these systemic vulnerabilities would likely exceed the value of the platform itself.

Recommendation: Immediate rejection. This vendor represents an unacceptable security risk that would compromise our entire technology ecosystem. Any consideration of integration would require a complete security architecture rebuild from the vendor, which seems improbable given their current posture.

Mandated next steps:

Formally document vendor security assessment
Notify procurement of non-compliance
Request comprehensive security remediation plan
Consider alternative platforms with demonstrable security maturity

The technical integration risk is absolute and non-negotiable. Proceed only if willing to accept potentially catastrophic security exposure.

Legal/Compliance

Hygraph presents an unacceptable compliance risk that would expose our organization to substantial regulatory and legal vulnerabilities. With an overall security score of 26/100 and an F grade, this vendor fails to meet minimum enterprise security standards and introduces critical legal exposure across multiple regulatory domains.

Our comprehensive legal risk assessment reveals severe compliance deficiencies. The complete absence of fundamental security certifications - including SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR compliance, and HIPAA certification - represents a significant breach of standard enterprise risk management protocols. This certification vacuum indicates systemic gaps in data protection mechanisms that directly contravene regulatory requirements such as GDPR's Article 25 (data protection by design) and CCPA's mandates for comprehensive data security controls.

The vendor's zero scores across critical security dimensions - identity access, encryption, data privacy, and infrastructure security - signal profound structural weaknesses that create direct legal liability. Under current regulatory frameworks like GDPR (Article 32) and CCPA, organizations are legally responsible for ensuring vendor data processing meets rigorous technical and organizational security standards. Hygraph's comprehensive security failure would likely constitute a per se violation of these regulatory requirements, potentially exposing our organization to significant financial penalties and reputational damage.

Legal Recommendation: Reject engagement. The compliance risk fundamentally exceeds acceptable enterprise thresholds. Any potential contractual protections or data processing agreements cannot mitigate the inherent systemic security failures. Pursuing a relationship with Hygraph would represent an imprudent and potentially negligent risk exposure that fails basic enterprise risk management standards.

Recommendation: Immediate vendor disqualification. Seek alternative solutions with demonstrable security and compliance capabilities.

AI-Powered Analysis

Claude Sonnet 4•739 words•Zero fabrication

Security Posture & Operational Capabilities

Comprehensive assessment of Hygraph's security posture, operational maturity, authentication capabilities, security automation APIs, and breach intelligence.

🏢

Operational Maturity

Support, SLAs, and documentation quality

Documentation Quality

90% • Excellent

🔐

Authentication Data Not Yet Assessed

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

🤖

Security Automation APIs

Programmatic user management, data operations, and security controls

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about Hygraph

Hygraph's security assessment reveals critical vulnerabilities across multiple dimensions, resulting in an F grade with an overall security score of 26/100. The platform struggles significantly in Compliance & Certification, scoring zero, and demonstrates weak performance in Data Protection (20/100) and Identity & Access Management (25/100). API Security scores only marginally better at 30/100, indicating substantial security risks for organizations considering the platform. Infrastructure Security shows modest improvement at 50/100, suggesting basic protective measures exist. The sole bright spots are Vulnerability Management (85/100) and a perfect Breach History score, which provide minimal reassurance. Security decision-makers should conduct thorough due diligence before implementing Hygraph, carefully evaluating the platform's substantial security gaps. See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of each evaluated security parameter and potential mitigation strategies.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Compare with Alternatives

How does Hygraph stack up against similar applications in Creative & Design? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.

Application	Overall ScoreScore↓	Grade	AI Security 🤖AI 🤖⇅	Pricing	Action
Agility CMS	53/100🏆	B	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
AdCreative.ai	31/100	D	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
Altium	27/100	F	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
HygraphCurrent	26/100	F	N/A	Contact Sales
Animaker, Inc	23/100	F	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
ACDSee	22/100	F	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView
Acquia Customer Data Platform	22/100	F	N/A	Contact Sales	View ProfileView

💡

Security Comparison Insight

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

View All Apps in Creative & Design