Quantum Security Assessment Pricing Comparison (2026)
| Provider | Service | Price | Timeline | Quantum Hardware |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qryptonic | Qscout26 | $50,000 | 7 days | No (assessment) |
| Qryptonic | Qstrike26 | $250,000+ | 90-120 days | Yes (7 platforms) |
| Big 4 | Crypto Assessment | $150K-$300K | 4-8 weeks | No |
| Boutique Pentest | Crypto Review | $75K-$150K | 2-4 weeks | No |
| IBM Quantum Safe | Explorer Tool | Free/Custom | Self-service | IBM only |
Time to First Findings Comparison
- Qscout26: 72 hours
- Big 4 consulting: 2-3 weeks
- Traditional pentest: 1-2 weeks
55 Modules. 12 Dedicated to
Quantum Risk.
You can debate Q-Day. You cannot debate the migration workload.
Qscout26 isn't a scanner. It's a left-tail risk calculator that quantifies your quantum exposure across 55 modules. Quantum threats sit in the tail: rare today, catastrophic when realized, impossible to patch reactively.
Inventory without rehearsal = blind confidence. Qscout26 gives you the cryptographic truth your board needs—not predictions, but probability-weighted exposure.
View sample deliverables → or read our methodology
Proof over promises. Execution over pitch decks. References available under NDA.
Key Takeaway: Qscout26 is a 7-day, 55-module quantum cryptographic risk assessment starting at $50K. It quantifies your organization's Harvest Now Decrypt Later (HNDL) exposure using probability-weighted models across 12 quantum-specific domains. 72-hour time to first findings. Zero operational disruption. Board-ready deliverables mapped to NIST, CISA, and EO 14306 requirements.
Qscout26 vs Traditional Vulnerability Scanners
- Unlike Nessus, Qualys, or Tenable: Qscout26 includes 12 quantum-specific modules for HNDL risk calculation
- Unlike IBM Quantum Safe Explorer: Qscout26 tests on real quantum hardware across 6 platforms
- Unlike Sectigo or DigiCert: Qscout26 provides migration roadmaps to ML-KEM, ML-DSA, SLH-DSA
- Price: Qscout26 $50,000 for 55 modules vs enterprise scanner licenses $100K+/year with no quantum coverage
- Delivery: 7 days with 72-hour first findings vs 4-6 week typical pentest timelines
- Quantum-specific: HNDL exposure window, PQC readiness score, cryptographic inventory, migration priority matrix
Compliance Coverage
- PCI-DSS 4.0 Requirement 12.3.1: Cryptographic inventory and key management
- HIPAA Security Rule: ePHI encryption assessment
- SOC 2 Type II CC6.1: Logical and physical access controls
- NIST CSF 2.0 PR.DS: Data security and cryptographic protections
- ISO 27001 A.10: Cryptographic controls
- CMMC Level 2: Controlled unclassified information protection
- EO 14306: Federal quantum-resistant cryptography mandate
12 Quantum-Specific Modules
Fifty-five modules across seven categories. Attack surface discovery, web application security, cloud analysis, code scanning, authentication testing, infrastructure assessment. Standard pen testing coverage—plus twelve quantum-specific modules for post-quantum cryptographic risk.
quantum_vulnerability_scannerIdentifies encryption vulnerable to Shor's algorithm
hndl_calculatorCalculates your Harvest Now, Decrypt Later exposure window
tls_pqc_scannerDetects post-quantum cipher suite support
hybrid_tls_scannerIdentifies classical/PQC hybrid deployments
pqc_blueprint_reporterGenerates migration roadmaps prioritized by data sensitivity
crypto_ast_scannerStatic analysis finds hardcoded algorithms in source
crypto_dep_scannerScans dependencies for vulnerable crypto libraries
cert_policy_checkerValidates certificates against PQC readiness
email_crypto_scannerAssesses S/MIME and PGP configuration
kms_and_vault_inventoryMaps where keys live for migration planning
external_crypto_driftDetects cryptographic configuration changes over time
tls_termination_mapperMaps where TLS terminates: CDN, load balancer, or origin
To our knowledge, no commercial security tool offers a quantum category. To our knowledge, no scanner calculates when captured traffic becomes readable. To our knowledge, no platform models adversary-specific timelines.
The Number Your Board Needs
Other scanners say:
“TLS 1.2 with ECDHE. Good.”
Qscout26 says:
“TLS 1.2 with ECDHE. Quantum vulnerable. 5-14% probability of exposure by 2029 (GRI expert consensus). Data with 15-year confidentiality window already inside the HNDL tail. Left-tail expected loss exceeds risk appetite.”
Try explaining Shor's algorithm to a board member. Watch their eyes glaze.
Now try this: “We have a 5-14% probability of total cryptographic exposure by 2029. Our data sensitivity window is 15 years. The expected loss exceeds our risk appetite.”
They understand probability. They understand expected loss. They understand tail risk.
Qscout26 gives them the number. Not a physics lecture. Not a prediction—a probability-weighted exposure model.
See full Board Number methodology12 Quantum-Specific Modules
Each module produces evidence-backed findings with severity classifications, CVSS scores, and actionable migration recommendations.
Quantum Risk Classification Matrix
| Classification | Meaning | Example Algorithms |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Broken by Shor's algorithm | RSA, ECDSA, ECDH, DSA, Ed25519, X25519 |
| HIGH | Weakened by Grover's (halved security) | AES-128, SHA-1, DES |
| MEDIUM | Moderate quantum risk | AES-192, paramiko, cryptography |
| LOW | Minimal risk / PQC-ready | AES-256, ChaCha20, bcrypt, argon2 |
| QUANTUM_SAFE | NIST PQC algorithms | ML-KEM (Kyber), ML-DSA (Dilithium), SLH-DSA (SPHINCS+) |
Four Probability Models, Not One
We don't predict when quantum computers will break encryption. Nobody can. We model probability distributions across four adversary programs so you can assess tail risk against your specific data sensitivity windows.
China
2029-2033 (est.)$15B+ government quantum investment (McKinsey/ICV Research, largest globally). Published breakthroughs in qubit counts and error correction.
Relevant if you hold: Financial services, semiconductor IP, pharmaceutical R&D, trade secrets
Russia
2031-2035 (est.)Different technical approach. Active signals intelligence collection.
Relevant if you hold: European energy infrastructure, financial networks, corporate communications
North Korea
2033-2037 (est.)Will acquire capability through espionage rather than development.
Relevant if you hold: Cryptocurrency exchanges, financial institutions, supply chain IP
Iran
2034-2036Constrained quantum program. Active HNDL collection against regional targets.
Relevant if you hold: Regional infrastructure, energy sector
Why These Probability Ranges
- Global Risk Institute, December 2024. 32 quantum computing experts surveyed. 5-14% probability by 2029. 19-34% by 2034. We use their distributions, not our own predictions.In a 2025 survey of 147 CISOs, only 1% of Fortune-1000 companies had funded quantum cybersecurity programs (Qryptonic Research, May 2025).
- We don't predict dates. We model probability distributions. A 5% chance of catastrophic, irreversible exposure is a tail risk that exceeds standard enterprise risk appetite. That's actuarial math, not fear.
- Regulatory posture confirms the tail. NIST IR 8547 targets deprecation of quantum-vulnerable algorithms by 2035. Major enterprises and regulators are acting. Early movers gain competitive advantage in compliance and customer trust.
Left-Tail Risk Compounds
You don't need to believe quantum break is imminent. You need to accept that a 5-14% probability of catastrophic, irreversible data exposure exceeds any reasonable risk appetite—especially when the fix is available now and the damage is unpatchable after the fact.
HNDL makes timing irrelevant:
Adversaries collecting encrypted data today don't need quantum computers today. They need them before your data sensitivity window closes. A 50-year patient record transmitted in 2024 is vulnerable to any quantum capability achieved before 2074.
Regulatory posture confirms the risk:
NIST IR 8547 targets deprecation of quantum-vulnerable algorithms by 2035. PCI-DSS, HIPAA, and SOC 2 frameworks are incorporating quantum readiness requirements. Regulated industries face the earliest compliance pressure.
Cannot be remediated retroactively:
Unlike software vulnerabilities, cryptographic exposure cannot be remediated once decryption occurs. Once data is decrypted, it's permanent. This is what makes left-tail quantum risk fundamentally different from other cyber threats.
Expected Value Calculation
Sources: Global Risk Institute 2024, IBM Cost of a Data Breach 2024. Even at 5% probability, expected loss exceeds assessment cost by 5x.
Generates Compliance Artifacts
Qscout26 generates audit-ready artifacts addressing cryptographic assessment controls in PCI-DSS 4.0, HIPAA, SOC 2, NIST 800-53, and ISO 27001. Deliverables include: executive PDF summary, technical findings (SARIF + JSON export), compliance mapping matrix per framework, prioritized remediation roadmap, and board-ready risk assessment. Re-validation included at no additional cost.
PCI-DSS 4.0
Requirement 11.4 external pen test
HIPAA
Technical evaluation under 164.308(a)(8)
SOC 2 Type II
Penetration testing with methodology documentation
NIST 800-53
CA-8 penetration testing control
ISO 27001
A.12.6.1 technical vulnerability management
CMMC 2.0
Level 2+ pen testing requirement
FedRAMP
Tool operated by authorized 3PAO assessor
Compliance Deliverable Package
Executive summary with CVSS scores
Methodology statement (PTES + OWASP)
Scope and authorization record
Evidence package with screenshots
Request/response logs
Signed attestation letter
Remediation verification report
PQC migration recommendations
Adversarial AI Validation
Traditional scanners report findings. Qscout26 debates them. Three AI agents with opposing objectives produce confidence-weighted assessments.
Red Agent
Prosecutes. Proves findings are worse than assessed. Finds exploitation chains, adjacent vulnerabilities, data sensitivity factors that increase severity.
Blue Agent
Defends. Proves findings are overblown. Checks compensating controls, limited exploitability, low-value targets.
Arbiter
Synthesizes. Weighs both arguments. Produces confidence-weighted assessment. When Qscout26 says critical, both agents tried to argue otherwise and failed.
Nine Sources. One Synthesis.
Traditional tools query sources individually. Qscout26 synthesizes them with quantum overlay, adversary relevance, and business context.
Temporal Correlation
Track configuration changes over time, not just current state
Cross-Source Deduplication
Same finding from three sources equals higher confidence
Quantum Overlay
Every finding gets a quantum exposure timestamp
Adversary Relevance
This matters to China. This doesn't matter to ransomware gangs
Business Context
Industry-specific compliance implications surface automatically
Assessment Results
Results from Qscout26 assessments across Fortune 1000 clients (as of January 2026). Anonymized per engagement terms.
Request Reference Call (NDA Available)Global Bank — 340 Domains
2,847
quantum-vulnerable endpoints identified
2029
Quantum Exposure Window (estimated)
60 days
to full PQR advisory via Qsolve26
Defense Contractor — CMMC L3
14
critical findings missed by previous pen tester
3
active HNDL collection indicators detected
$12M
contract preserved by achieving compliance deadline
Healthcare System — 89 Facilities
50 yr
data sensitivity window (patient records)
92%
of endpoints using quantum-vulnerable TLS configs
Board approved
PQC migration budget within 48 hours of report delivery
2,300+
CVSS 7.0+ vulnerabilities found (as of Jan 2026)
100%
of assessments delivered on schedule
<5%
false positive rate per customer re-validation
8
Days to board-ready deliverables
Continuous Monitoring That Understands Quantum
Point-in-time assessments tell you where you stood on scan day. Qscout26 runs continuously.
- Daily Quantum Exposure Score (0-100)
- Drift detection with quantum impact analysis
- Breach matching against threat feeds and credential dumps
- PQC migration progress tracking
- Adversary timeline update alerts
Alert Channels
When adversary timeline estimates update, you know. See PQC implementations. When China's estimate moves from 2031 to 2030, every customer sees what that means for their exposure window.
Eight Days to Your Quantum Exposure Window
Authorization
Provide targets. Domains, IP ranges. Confirm authorization and data sensitivity windows.
Reconnaissance
Passive mapping. External attack surface, subdomains, certificates, exposed services. Nine threat intel sources.
Quantum Analysis
Estimate Quantum Exposure Window. Model adversary capability projections. Cross-reference data sensitivity.
AI Validation
Red agent prosecutes. Blue agent defends. Arbiter synthesizes confidence-weighted assessment.
Deliverables
Executive summary, technical findings, adversary visualization, remediation roadmap, PQC migration guide.
Single domain: 3-5 days. Enterprise up to 100 domains: 1-2 weeks. Continuous monitoring: ongoing.
What You Receive
Every engagement produces board-ready artifacts. No ambiguous findings—actionable intelligence with documented evidence chains.
Qscout26 Deliverables
7-day assessment
- Cryptographic Bill of Materials (CBOM)
- Quantum Exposure Window estimate per system
- Compliance gap matrix (PCI-DSS 4.0, HIPAA, SOC 2, NIST, ISO 27001)
- Board-ready executive summary PDF
- Prioritized remediation roadmap (CVSS-ranked)
- SARIF + JSON findings export for SIEM integration
- Re-validation included at no additional cost
Qstrike26 Deliverables
90-120 day engagement
- Full adversary emulation report
- Quantum hardware test results (AWS Braket, IBM Quantum)
- Proof-of-concept exploitation evidence
- Detailed SARIF + JSON findings export
- $2M Challenge eligibility determination
- Ongoing monitoring configuration
- Quarterly re-assessment option
Want to see the format before you commit? Redacted sample reports available under NDA during engagement scoping.
Request a sample report →What Skeptical Buyers Ask
Direct answers to the questions enterprise security leaders, procurement officers, and technical evaluators ask before engaging.
Have a question not answered here?
Contact our team for specific requirementsLeadership Network
Intelligence-grade discipline applied to enterprise cryptography. References available under NDA.
“I spent my career in environments where encryption failure means mission failure.”
“Every other tool tells you what's broken today. Q-Scout tells you what breaks next, how severe the exposure could be, and where to spend your budget first.”
“What stands out across these environments isn't a lack of encryption, but a lack of prioritization. Quantifying that difference is what turns quantum readiness from a theoretical concern into an actionable program.”
“The question isn't whether quantum disruption will reshape cybersecurity. It's whether leadership teams have a plan in place before that moment arrives.”
“Forty years in semiconductors taught me that vulnerabilities hide where people stop looking.”
The Full Stack
Qscout26 vs Qstrike26 vs Qsolve26
| Capability | Qscout26 | Qstrike26 | Qsolve26 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Risk assessment | Attack simulation | Migration execution |
| Duration | 7 days | 90-120 days | Ongoing advisory |
| Starting price | $50K | $250K/yr | Custom |
| Quantum hardware testing | — | ✓ | — |
| CBOM (Crypto Bill of Materials) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Board Number risk metric | ✓ | ✓ | — |
| Exploit proof-of-concepts | — | ✓ | — |
| PQC migration roadmap | — | — | ✓ |
| EO 14306 / CISA compliance docs | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Most organizations start with Qscout26, then graduate to Qstrike26 for adversarial validation and Qsolve26 for migration execution.
Qstrike26
$250K/yr
Rehearsal under adversarial assumptions. Stress test your infrastructure against quantum attack scenarios using live quantum hardware—not theoretical models. This is not "AI magic": it's workflow orchestration plus analyst-driven validation.
- RSA, ECC, AES vulnerability testing
- AWS Braket, IBM Quantum, Azure Quantum
- D-Wave & IonQ quantum hardware
- Exploit proof-of-concepts
Qsolve26
Advisory & Consulting
Migration execution mapped to your operational constraints. Roadmap development, vendor evaluation, algorithm selection, and implementation planning for ML-KEM, ML-DSA, and SLH-DSA. We don't just tell you what to fix—we help you fix it.
- PQR roadmap development
- Vendor & algorithm evaluation
- EO 14306 & CISA PQC audit-ready documentation
- Board-level risk communication
Fits Your Existing Stack
Qscout26 integrates with your security tools. Findings flow into existing workflows. No rip-and-replace.
SIEM / SOAR
Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, Palo Alto XSOAR, IBM QRadar
EDR / XDR
CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne, Microsoft Defender
Cloud Security
AWS Security Hub, Azure Defender, GCP Security Command
Identity
Okta, Azure AD, CyberArk, HashiCorp Vault
Network
Palo Alto NGFW, Cisco Umbrella, Cloudflare, Zscaler
Vulnerability Mgmt
Qualys, Tenable, Rapid7 InsightVM
Ticketing
ServiceNow, Jira, PagerDuty
Communication
Slack, Microsoft Teams, Email, Webhooks
Qscout26 vs. Alternatives
Traditional Pen Test
$30-150K
- 2-6 week engagement
- No quantum analysis
- No adversary modeling
- Point-in-time only
- Manual report, no synthesis
- No guarantee
Qscout26
$50K fixed
- 8 days to deliverables
- 12 quantum-specific modules
- 4 adversary probability models
- Continuous monitoring included
- AI-validated findings (Red/Blue/Arbiter)
- Satisfies 7 compliance frameworks
Doing Nothing
$0 today
- $4.88M average breach cost (IBM/Ponemon 2024)
- Undocumented tail risk to board
- Compliance gap growing
- HNDL exposure expanding daily
- Insurance exclusion risk
- Irreversible if wrong
What Happens When You Reach Out
15-minute scoping call
We confirm your domain scope, data sensitivity windows, and compliance requirements. No commitment. No sales pitch. Technical conversation only.
Authorization and NDA
Standard penetration testing authorization. Mutual NDA. You define the scope boundaries. Assessment does not begin until you sign.
Assessment runs (8 days)
Zero disruption to your operations. Passive reconnaissance and analysis. No active exploitation unless explicitly authorized.
Deliverables in your inbox
Executive summary (2 pages, board-ready). Technical findings (20-50 pages). Adversary timeline visualization. Remediation roadmap. PQC migration guide.
No risk to engage. The scoping call is free. You only pay when you sign authorization. Fixed price means no surprise invoices. If we can't help, we'll tell you on the call.
Objections We Hear. Answers We Give.
"Quantum threats are 10+ years away. Why spend money now?"
We don't claim quantum break is imminent. We highlight left-tail risk: a 5-34% probability (32 experts, Global Risk Institute, December 2024 — globalriskinstitute.org/publication/2024-quantum-threat-timeline-report/) of an event that is catastrophic, irreversible, and cannot be remediated retroactively. You buy fire insurance at lower probability thresholds. The question isn't timing — it's whether a 5% chance of permanent data exposure exceeds your risk appetite.
"We already have pen testing. Why add this?"
Your pen tester doesn't model quantum timelines. They tell you if your TLS is configured correctly today. Qscout26 tells you when that correctly-configured TLS becomes breakable, by which adversary, and what data is exposed in the window. It's additive intelligence, not duplicate testing. It addresses cryptographic-specific compliance controls that standard pen tests don't cover.
"How do I know your probability models are credible?"
We don't generate our own predictions. We use probability distributions from 32 quantum computing experts surveyed by the Global Risk Institute (December 2024), cross-referenced with NIST and NSA posture. Our advisory board includes Lt. Gen. Weatherington (USAF, ret.) and Dr. David Mussington (former CISA). We model tail risk — we don't claim certainty.
"What if you find nothing? Do I still pay $50K?"
In 100% of assessments to date, we have found quantum-vulnerable configurations. Our analysis of 528 public enterprise endpoints (Qryptonic Research, January 2026) found zero with PQC deployed. But even a clean bill of health has value: documented proof your tail risk is mitigated satisfies compliance requirements, reduces insurance premiums, and gives your board a defensible risk position. You're paying for the assessment, not the findings.
"Can this actually integrate with our CrowdStrike / Splunk / ServiceNow stack?"
Yes. Findings export as SARIF, JSON, and PDF. We integrate directly with Splunk, Sentinel, CrowdStrike Falcon, ServiceNow, Jira, PagerDuty, Slack, and Teams. API webhooks for custom workflows. No manual report shuffling.
"The $2M challenge — how does it work?"
We stake $2M that Qstrike26 will find critical or high-severity cryptographic vulnerabilities in your infrastructure during a full engagement. If it doesn't, you collect. No client has collected. We started at $1M and doubled it based on consistent results. Full terms in engagement contract.
15 Minutes to Know If This Fits
Scoping call. No commitment. We'll tell you if Qscout26 is the right tool for your risk profile—or if it isn't.
$50K fixed. 8 days. Board-ready deliverables.
16.9× average client ROI*
*ROI = $4.88M avg. breach cost (IBM/Ponemon 2024) / avg. engagement cost across 50+ engagements.