The exact deliverable, rendered as it ships — built on a fictional demo tenant, Acme Capital, so we can publish every page in the open. Every number is labeled proven from config, or modeled and shown as such.
When CyberTwin recommends a stack, it runs that stack through the same rubric it used to grade your current setup — and shows you the number. The recommended Balanced stack scores 64/100; the Advanced upgrade scores 72/100. You decide whether the delta is worth it.
Strengths, gaps and trade-offs for each stack — scored by the same rubric that grades the setup you run today. You decide whether the upgrade is worth it.
Engine output, not marketing math: both scores follow one rubric, published at /methodology, from the same engine run as the fintech sample PDF on this page, at catalog list prices. Totals sum priced picks only. The New Architecture view below draws the stack builder's own fintech profile, a slightly different seed, so its totals can differ.
New Architecture, Architecture Review, and Configuration Review each generate a different deliverable. Below is a sample of each for the fictional Acme Capital — real engine-output shape, with the architecture diagram (SVG / PNG export) and the rules sheet.
Engine output for the 200-person fintech / payments sample profile — the same run behind the fintech sample PDF. List prices dated 2026-09-25 · modeled, not a quote.
No 24x7 managed detection in this stack — after-hours incident response relies on your own team (declared on-call: business hours).
1 pick is not priced (Nightfall AI) — the $216,335 total excludes it, so fitting the $250,000 budget ceiling is unconfirmed; each pick says why.
Exceeds the stated $250,000 budget ceiling by $41,479/year.
Not a fintech, not 200 people? Build the three stacks for a company like yours →
The architecture, ready to hand to an engineer or auditor.
Tools grouped by architecture layer; edges show the protection and data-flow relationships the engine maps. Red-bordered nodes are the crown-jewel data stores. Export as SVG or PNG to hand to an auditor.
The sample FortiGate config's findings, sequenced by severity — Now / Next / Later.
The default sample is a fictional fintech. If you're in healthtech, SaaS, e-commerce, or another sector, generate a personalized version showing the vendors, frameworks, and compliance scoring that match your environment.
Every report is built from the same uploaded data. Each preview below is a real, downloadable PDF — rendered from the seeded Acme Capital environment, not a comp.
Every audited control in SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS v4, and NCA ECC v2 mapped to specific evidence — config-review findings, intake answers, posture snapshots, uploaded documents. Effort-ranked gaps with remediation guidance.
Pre-filled questionnaires for the major cyber insurance carriers. Each answer carries a confidence tag (definite / inferred / human-required) and a premium-impact signal (helpful / neutral / loaded). Premium-loaded answers ranked first.
Posture trend (12-month sparkline), ALE year-over-year as a modeled range, top open and remediated critical findings, and framework coverage counted by the evidence behind each control.
Attack-path mapping across the security tools you actually run. Uploads from 14 of them feed the graph today: Microsoft Entra, Okta, JumpCloud, AWS IAM (identity) · FortiGate, PAN-OS, Cisco ASA, Cisco Meraki (network) · Cloudflare (web application firewall) · Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon (endpoint) · AWS Config (cloud) · Microsoft Defender for O365 (email) · Microsoft Sentinel (SIEM). BFS from each entry to each sensitive resource. Edges annotated with MITRE technique codes (26 distinct techniques). Paths matched against 11 threat-actor categories. Diagram uploads are read for follow-up questions only — they are not yet turned into topology, and reading diagram images (PNG / JPG) is paused.
Walks an incident through the MITRE kill-chain. Shows which open findings would have broken the chain at each phase. Counterfactual loss avoided. Used post-incident or for tabletop preparation.
Compare prod vs staging, region A vs B. Diffs findings, severity counts, framework coverage, intake answers, ALE. The report that catches drift before audit.
Every product in the Balanced stack — only those — in deployment order. Architecture diagram annotated with deployment-order numbers and integration arrows color-coded by fit class. A written setup guide per product where one exists, with template variables substituted to your environment (org name, primary IdP, primary cloud, network seed subnet); each guide is a draft your team reviews before production. Inline integration handoffs between consecutive products. On Operate and above, per-step compliance annotation pins each setup step to specific framework controls (SOC 2 CC6.1, ISO 27001 A.5.17, NCA ECC 2-2-3, etc.) and a coverage scorecard at the end shows X of Y framework controls satisfied. Honest empty-state cards for products without a written guide (vendor-doc + Configuration Review check pointers).
Not a report for the board. It is the working document your engineers build from. Included in every subscription; the per-step control tags and the coverage scorecard start on Operate.
Engine output for the same fictional Acme Capital — exportable as SVG or PNG.
Tools grouped by architecture layer; edges show the protection and data-flow relationships the engine maps. Red-bordered nodes are the crown-jewel data stores. Export as SVG or PNG to hand to an auditor.
Sample reports are static fictional data. Your assessment uses your real intake, your real configurations, your real frameworks — signup to first PDF in a single session.