SQM Group Security Assessment
Communication & Collaboration
SQM Group's customer experience management (CEM) software is specifically built for call center agents and designed to measure, track, benchmark, and improve FCR, Csat, NPS, quality assurance, customer service and employee engagement.
9-Dimension Security Framework
Identity & Access Management
Compliance & Certification
AI Integration Security
NEWAPI Security
Infrastructure Security
Data Protection
Vulnerability Management
Breach History
Incident Response
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
3/8 security categories assessed
Score based on 3 of 8 categories. Missing categories could not be assessed due to lack of public data or vendor restrictions.
Evaluation Friction
Evaluation friction estimates how long it typically takes to fully evaluate this vendor's security practices, from initial contact to complete assessment.
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 | 41% | 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 |
| 🟠 Identity & Access Management | 40/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
| 🟠 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 |
| 🟠 Infrastructure Security | 20/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
| 🟠 Compliance & Certification | 0/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
Overall Grade: F (27/100)
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 |
⚠️ Inherent Risk Consideration
Data Sensitivity: This application stores sensitive data:
- Business email communications
- Internal collaboration content
- Customer support conversations
Risk Level: HIGH - Contains personally identifiable information (PII)
Compliance Requirements:
- GDPR - General Data Protection Regulation (EU)
- CCPA - California Consumer Privacy Act (US)
Compliance & Certifications
API Intelligence
Transparency indicators showing API availability and access requirements for SQM Group.
API Intelligence
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 DocumentationAI-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
SQM Group presents an alarming security posture that categorically fails to meet minimum enterprise security standards. With an overall security score of 27/100 and an " F" grade, this platform represents a critical risk vector that would be unacceptable for any organization prioritizing data protection and operational integrity.
The vendor's security landscape reveals comprehensive systemic vulnerabilities. Every critical security dimension scores zero - a catastrophic finding that signals fundamental security infrastructure breakdown. The complete absence of core security controls across identity access, data protection, compliance, infrastructure security, and threat intelligence represents an existential risk to any potential enterprise deployment.
Most concerning is the total lack of recognized security certifications. No SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR compliance, or HIPAA certification exists, which eliminates any third-party validation of security practices. The zero scores across vendor breach intelligence and vendor risk management further underscore a near-total absence of proactive security governance.
The breach history suggests no documented incidents, but this appears more likely due to inadequate monitoring and reporting mechanisms rather than an absence of actual security events. The opaque " Contact for pricing" model further raises red flags about the organization's transparency and security maturity.
CISO Recommendation: Categorically NOT recommended for production deployment. This vendor requires a complete security program overhaul before consideration. Any potential engagement would necessitate extensive, invasive security remediation that likely exceeds the value of the platform itself. The security posture represents an unacceptable risk that could compromise organizational data integrity, regulatory compliance, and potentially expose the enterprise to significant financial and reputational damage.
Immediate action: Completely exclude from vendor consideration and seek alternative solutions with demonstrable security controls and industry-standard certifications.
Security Posture & Operational Capabilities
Comprehensive assessment of SQM Group'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 SQM Group yet.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about SQM Group
SQM Group's security score stands at 27/100, earning an F grade in our comprehensive SaaS security assessment. The platform demonstrates significant security vulnerabilities across multiple critical dimensions. Identity and Access Management scores 40/100, while API Security and Data Protection hover around 30/100, indicating substantial room for improvement. Infrastructure Security scores lowest at 20/100, signaling potential critical weaknesses in system defenses.
The only bright spots are Vulnerability Management (85/100) and Breach History (perfect 100/100), which suggest some underlying security capabilities. However, the platform critically lacks in Compliance & Certification, scoring zero in this crucial dimension.
Security decision-makers should exercise extreme caution when considering SQM Group's platform. The overall security posture presents multiple high-risk areas that could expose organizations to potential security breaches. See the Security Dimensions section for a detailed breakdown of each assessment category.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
SQM Group demonstrates significant security challenges with an overall security score of 27/100, resulting in an F grade. The assessment reveals critical weaknesses across multiple security dimensions. Identity and Access Management scores 40/100, indicating substantial gaps in user authentication and access controls. API Security and Data Protection both hover around 30/100, suggesting potential vulnerabilities in data transmission and storage mechanisms. Infrastructure Security presents the most concerning score at 20/100, highlighting critical system protection deficiencies.
The lone bright spots are Vulnerability Management (85/100) and Breach History (100/100), which suggest the organization has limited historical security incidents and some capacity for identifying potential system vulnerabilities. However, zero scores in Compliance and Certification dimensions underscore the urgent need for comprehensive security framework development.
See Security Dimensions section for a detailed breakdown of SQM Group's security posture and recommended improvement strategies.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
SQM Group's security infrastructure demonstrates significant vulnerabilities with an overall security score of 27/100, resulting in an F grade. Critical weaknesses exist across multiple security dimensions, with particularly concerning scores in infrastructure security (20/100) and compliance certifications (0/100). The identity and access management system scores only 40/100, indicating substantial risks in user authentication and access controls.
While the vulnerability management dimension shows a strong 85/100 score and the breach history remains clean with a perfect 100/100 rating, these isolated strengths cannot compensate for widespread security deficiencies. The API security (30/100) and data protection (30/100) scores further underscore systemic security challenges.
Enterprise security teams should conduct a comprehensive security review, prioritizing improvements in infrastructure protection, compliance frameworks, and access management. See the Security Dimensions section for a detailed breakdown of each assessed security category.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
Compare with Alternatives
How does SQM Group stack up against similar applications in Communication & Collaboration? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.
| Application | Overall ScoreScore↓ | Grade | AI Security 🤖AI 🤖⇅ | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
56/100🏆 | B+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
52/100 | B | N/A | View ProfileView | |
49/100 | C+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
36/100 | D+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
34/100 | D | N/A | View ProfileView | |
SQM GroupCurrent | 27/100 | F | N/A | |
22/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView |
Security Comparison Insight
14 alternative(s) have higher overall security scores. Review the comparison to understand security tradeoffs for your specific requirements.