How SecurityScorecard Works: Scoring Methodology, Data Sources, and What It Misses

Security ratings are a resourceful metric that provides a gauge on the external cybersecurity posture of organizations and has become a data point that is important in today’s third-party risk management programs, as businesses strive to protect their sensitive data and assets from cyberattacks. One of the original providers of security rating services is SecurityScorecard, which offers a platform for assessing and improving an organization’s cybersecurity posture for both enterprise risk and third-party risk management use cases. But how exactly does it work?

How does SecurityScorecard get its data?

SecurityScorecard Dashboard UI, source: securityscorecard.com 

The platform utilizes a combination of external and proprietary data sources, continuously monitoring a myriad of risk factors. The platform collects data from a variety of sources, including public records, vulnerability scans, threat intelligence and breach history ensuring an external view of an organization’s cybersecurity posture made available to clients and organization’s assessing companies as vendors. SecurityScorecard then analyzes this data to generate a security rating for the enterprise or each vendor organization being evaluated.

SecurityScorecard gathers data from a variety of sources, including:

• Publicly available information: Security Scorecard scans the internet for information about an organization’s security posture, such as exposed ports, outdated software, and known vulnerabilities.
• Private data sources: SecurityScorecard also integrates data from a variety of private sources, such as security researchers, threat intelligence feeds, and vulnerability databases.

Read the Whitepaper

The Evolution of Cybersecurity Ratings and How They Can Boost Risk Visibility

Download

What is the SecurityScorecard scale?

SecurityScorecard gathers data from external sources but emphasizes publicly accessible information, focusing on factors like DNS health and patching cadence. SecurityScorecard can also directly scan organizations to help reduce the misattributions of IT asset ownerships to organizations.

SecurityScorecard evaluates an organization’s cybersecurity posture across across ten groups of risk factors, including DNS health, IP reputation, web application security, network security, leaked information, hacker chatter, endpoint security, and patching cadence, as described on their website.

They take into account all the external-facing discoverable assets of an organization, the issues associated with those assets, and the severity of the threats that were found in order to determine a score for each organization. The scores are graded and measured along a cybersecurity risk rating scale in this case the SecurityScorecard scale is on an alpha scale of A-F.

Is SecurityScorecard worth it?

Ultimately, whether or not SecurityScorecard is worth it for an organization depends on its specific needs, challenges and budget. Other things to consider are the methodologies used to derive the security rating, dispute process for any misattributions or false positives and their customer support experience. There are publicly available references that also discuss ‘Is SecurityScorecard worth it?’ that can be found Reddit SecurityScorecard forums, Gartner Peer Insights, G2 reviews and so on.

SecurityScorecard offers a number of benefits for organizations, including:

• Improved visibility into security risks: SecurityScorecard provides an overview of an organization’s security posture based on what it can identify for assets, that will then include any strengths and weaknesses of those attributed assets (remember the need for accuracy and misattributions from earlier). This can help organizations to identify and prioritize their security risks.
• Enhanced decision-making: SecurityScorecard’s data can be used to make informed decisions about cybersecurity investments and initiatives.
• Reduced costs: By identifying and addressing external security risks early, organizations can save money on security incidents and data breaches that may be sourced from an external perspective.
• Competitive advantage: A good security rating can give organizations a competitive advantage in the marketplace like when they are being evaluated as a potential vendor (where the client wants a low cyber risk provider as judged by the provided security rating) or seeking lower cyber insurance premiums.

However, there are also some potential drawbacks to using SecurityScorecard, such as:

• Cost: SecurityScorecard can be expensive, there may be tangential costs related to an inaccurate rating and the dispute process may not be swift, especially for small businesses.
• Accuracy: SecurityScorecard’s ratings are based on a variety of factors, and there is always a risk that they may not be completely accurate.
• Reliance on external data: SecurityScorecard’s ratings are based on data from external sources, which can be inaccurate or incomplete.

As businesses weigh their options in cybersecurity threat assessment tools and security ratings providers, evaluating the competition is crucial. Several SecurityScorecard competitors compete in the market, offering alternative solutions and consolidated TPRM platform options. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of SecurityScorecard compared to SecurityScorecard competitors is essential for making an informed decision.

SecurityScorecard competitors include:

• BitSight
• Black Kite
• CyberGRX
• FortifyData
• Panorays
• Prevelant
• RiskRecon
• Upguard

How FortifyData’s approach is different

FortifyData is not a security ratings provider that competes on the same methodology as SecurityScorecard. The differentiation is structural.

Where SecurityScorecard derives its assessment from externally observable signals and third-party data feeds, FortifyData conducts weekly direct, non-intrusive scans of confirmed IT assets, assets the client organization has verified as their own. That distinction matters because it eliminates misattribution, produces findings that are current rather than derived from periodically updated feeds, and generates data that is auditable and defensible when regulators or auditors ask how you know what you know about your vendors.

The platform combines attack surface management, third-party risk management, and compliance automation in a single system. That means the same live scanning data that produces your vendor risk score also feeds your compliance posture and your internal asset inventory; rather than requiring three separate tools with three separate data sets that may not agree with each other.

For organizations in regulated industries, like banking, credit unions, healthcare, where FFIEC, NCUA, NYDFS, and HIPAA/OCR guidance increasingly scrutinizes the quality of TPRM data rather than just the existence of a program, the ability to produce current, attributed, directly-assessed findings is the difference between a defensible vendor risk program and one that looks adequate until an examiner looks closely.

FortifyData also supports asset classification, likelihood adjustments, and compensating controls, so the risk score reflects your organization’s specific context rather than a generic external view. Internal assessments can be incorporated alongside external ones, giving security teams a complete picture from a single platform.

Read more about how FortifyData calculates security ratings in our publicly available security rating methodology.

Related Security Ratings and TPRM Resources

• What is a security rating?
• Cybersecurity rating scale explained
• What are security ratings used for?
• How are security ratings created?
• What is a good cybersecurity rating?
• How do you improve your security rating?
• Is it easy to switch security ratings providers?
• Why is my security rating wrong?
• What Kind of Company is BitSight?
• What is the Highest Security Rating?
• Select What are the 5 C’s of Cybersecurity?
• What is the difference between SecurityScorecard and BitSight?
• What is the difference between BitSight and RiskIQ?
• What is the difference between SecurityScorecard and CyberGRX?

How accurate is the SecurityScorecard rating?

The accuracy of the SecurityScorecard rating is a complex issue. The SecurityScorecard rating uses a proprietary algorithm to generate its security rating, and the company does not disclose all of the factors that are considered. However, SecurityScorecard security rating services has been independently validated by a number of third-party organizations, and its ratings have been found to be useful.

The accuracy of a security rating services system is a critical consideration for businesses. SecurityScorecard employs advanced algorithms and continuously updates its data to provide an accurate reflection of an organization’s security posture. However, like any system, it has its limitations. Exploring the nuances of SecurityScorecard’s rating system allows organizations to grasp the precision and reliability of the scores provided.

What SecurityScorecard misses

SecurityScorecard’s methodology is built on externally observable signals, that is what can be seen from outside an organization’s perimeter without direct access. That approach has real utility, but it also has documented limitations that matter when your TPRM program needs to hold up to regulatory scrutiny.

Misattribution and IP asset errors

SecurityScorecard assigns security findings to organizations based on external IP attribution, but IP ownership is messy. Shared hosting environments, cloud infrastructure, CDN providers, and legacy IP blocks frequently result in findings being attributed to the wrong organization. SecurityScorecard does offer a dispute process, but resolution is not swift, and in the meantime your vendor’s score reflects inaccurate data. If a regulator or auditor asks you to explain a scoring discrepancy, “we filed a dispute” is not a defensible answer.

FortifyData’s direct scanning approach confirms asset ownership with the client organization before assessments run, eliminating the misattribution problem at the source rather than resolving it after the fact.

Point-in-time snapshots versus continuous visibility

SecurityScorecard continuously monitors external signals, but the data feeding those signals is not always current. Threat intelligence feeds, breach databases, and vulnerability disclosures operate on their own publication cadences. More critically, annual vendor reviews that rely on a SecurityScorecard score as the primary evidence are presenting a point-in-time picture, not a continuous one. The organizations breached through third parties in 2024 almost universally had a review process in place. What they lacked was visibility into what changed between reviews.

FortifyData conducts weekly direct assessments of external IT assets, producing live data rather than a score derived from periodically updated external feeds.

Regulatory defensibility gap

FFIEC examiners, NCUA supervisors, and NYDFS regulators have each issued guidance in 2024 and 2025 that explicitly addresses the quality of third-party risk data; not just whether a TPRM program exists, but whether the data underlying it is current, attributed correctly, and defensible under examination. A security rating derived from external signals and third-party aggregated data is increasingly difficult to defend when an examiner asks how you verified the underlying findings. Organizations in regulated financial services verticals are discovering this gap during examinations rather than before them.

How does SecurityScorecard work?

The security rating from SecurityScorecard, like many other security rating services providers, is produced by:

• Collecting data: SecurityScorecard collects data from a variety of sources, as described above.
• Analyzing data: SecurityScorecard analyzes the data to identify security risks and vulnerabilities.
• Generating security ratings: SecurityScorecard generates a security rating for each organization based on its analysis of the data.
• Providing insights: SecurityScorecard provides organizations with insights into their security posture and recommendations for improvement.

How does SecurityScorecard collect data?

At the core of SecurityScorecard’s functionality is its reliance on a range of risk and vulnerability data to provide their security rating services. These data points contribute valuable insights, ranging from network security to application security and breach history. SecurityScorecard collects data using a variety of methods, including:

• Scanning the internet: SecurityScorecard continuously scans the internet for information about an organization’s security posture.
• Analyzing data feeds: SecurityScorecard collects data from a variety of data feeds, such as security researchers and threat intelligence feeds.
• Integrating with other security tools: SecurityScorecard can integrate with other security tools to collect additional data.

Now You Know the Answer to How Does SecurityScorecard Work?

SecurityScorecard is one of the original security rating providers that can help organizations to improve their cybersecurity posture. However, it is important to understand the limitations of the platform and to use it in conjunction with other security measures.

In conclusion, this article aims to demystify the question, “How does SecurityScorecard work?” By examining its data collection methods, assessing its worth in comparison to competitors, gauging the accuracy of its ratings, and understanding the collaboration with security rating services, businesses can make informed decisions about integrating SecurityScorecard into their cybersecurity arsenal.

Evaluating SecurityScorecard alternatives?

See how FortifyData’s direct scanning methodology compares and what continuous, attributed vendor risk data looks like for organizations that need to defend their TPRM program under regulatory examination.

See how FortifyData compares.

Frequently Asked Questions About SecurityScorecard

How does SecurityScorecard collect its data?

SecurityScorecard collects data from publicly available sources, including internet scans, threat intelligence feeds, vulnerability databases, and breach history records. It monitors external-facing signals such as DNS health, IP reputation, patching cadence, and web application security without direct access to the organization being assessed. This external-only data collection is both a strength, it requires no cooperation from the vendor, and a limitation, since findings depend on the accuracy of IP attribution and third-party data feeds.

How accurate is SecurityScorecard’s security rating?

SecurityScorecard’s accuracy depends heavily on the quality of its IP attribution, assigning the correct security findings to the correct organization. Shared hosting environments, cloud infrastructure, and CDN providers create misattribution errors that can inflate or deflate a vendor’s score. Have you checked Reddit about this topic? Lots of experience about the accuracy from the posters there. SecurityScorecard does offer a dispute process for organizations that identify errors, but resolution timelines vary. Organizations relying on SecurityScorecard scores for regulatory compliance should understand that the underlying data reflects external signals rather than a direct assessment of the vendor’s actual security posture. 

What are the main limitations of SecurityScorecard for TPRM programs?

The three most significant limitations for TPRM programs are misattribution of IP assets to the wrong organization, reliance on external signals rather than direct assessment of the vendor’s confirmed assets, and the challenge of producing audit-ready evidence when regulators or internal auditors question the data quality. Financial institutions subject to FFIEC, NCUA, or NYDFS oversight increasingly face examination scrutiny not just of whether a TPRM program exists but whether the underlying data is current, correctly attributed, and defensible; requirements that externally-derived security ratings struggle to satisfy.

How does FortifyData’s methodology differ from SecurityScorecard?

FortifyData conducts weekly direct, non-intrusive scans of confirmed IT assets rather than deriving scores from external signals and third-party data feeds. Asset ownership is verified with the client organization before assessments run, eliminating the misattribution problem. The platform combines attack surface management, third-party risk management, and compliance automation in a single system, so the same live scan data feeds vendor risk scores, compliance posture, and internal asset inventory rather than requiring separate tools with potentially conflicting data.

Can SecurityScorecard data satisfy regulatory TPRM requirements?

SecurityScorecard can support a TPRM program as one data point among several, but regulators in financial services are increasingly scrutinizing the quality of underlying data rather than accepting a security score, in conjunction with legal agreements and assurance you’ve reviewed security policy documentation as sufficient evidence. FFIEC updated examiner guidance in August 2024 specifically addresses whether third-party risk data is current and how management validates the accuracy of that data. NYDFS issued an October 2025 Industry Letter stating that absence of appropriate TPRM practices will factor into enforcement actions. Organizations subject to these frameworks should ensure their TPRM data can be defended at the finding level, not just the score level.

What should organizations look for when evaluating SecurityScorecard alternatives?

The most important evaluation criteria are data methodology, attribution accuracy, and regulatory defensibility. Specifically: does the tool conduct direct assessments or rely on external signals? How does it handle IP misattribution? Can findings be traced back to a specific asset with confirmed ownership? Is the data current enough to satisfy regulatory requirements for continuous monitoring rather than point-in-time snapshots? Organizations in regulated industries should also evaluate whether the platform integrates TPRM with compliance automation and attack surface management, reducing the tool sprawl that complicates program management and audit preparation.