Healthcare cybersecurity · Medical device OEM security
MedCrypt
MedCrypt is a cybersecurity platform for medical device manufacturers. OEM teams use it for FDA cybersecurity readiness, threat modeling, and product security maintenance. It is not a hospital IoMT visibility product for devices already on clinical networks.
Strong fit
- Medical device manufacturers preparing FDA cybersecurity submissions
- OEM security teams that need threat modeling and vulnerability monitoring for devices
- Buyers who measure success by clearance readiness, not hospital SOC tickets
Weak fit
- Hospitals shopping for IoMT inventory of devices they already own
- Buyers wanting a managed detection service for clinical networks
- Teams with no device manufacturing or FDA submission work
Bottom line
MedCrypt earns a Recommend for medical device manufacturers that need cybersecurity submission and product-security tooling. It is not aimed at hospital CISOs buying IoMT visibility. Outcomes center on FDA-ready documentation and ongoing device security maintenance. Product fit is OEM and manufacturer-facing, which is a narrower buyer set than Claroty or Cylera. Implementation follows product-security and regulatory timelines more than hospital network projects. Pricing is custom. Score reflects solid niche product marks with a Conditional-adjacent buyer scope for most provider readers on this site.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
MedCrypt serves medical device manufacturers that must meet FDA cybersecurity expectations and keep products secure after clearance. That work sits upstream of the hospital IoMT tools most provider CISOs evaluate.
We include it on this board because healthcare cybersecurity buyers sometimes need the OEM lane explained next to hospital device-security products. Ask about submission readiness, SBOM and vulnerability process, and manufacturer ownership - not network taps on a nursing floor.
Most hospital security teams should keep comparing Cylera, Claroty, Cynerio, and Asimily. MedCrypt's score reflects credible OEM product depth with a deliberately narrow fit for provider readers.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| MedCrypt | 7.1 | 6.9 |
| Cylera | 7.4 | 7.0 |
| Claroty | 7.5 | 7.1 |
| Asimily | 7.2 | 6.8 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Platform and services packages for device manufacturers; not sold like hospital IoMT SaaS. |
| What usually drives cost | Number of device products in scope, submission support intensity, and monitoring after clearance. |
| What to ask in diligence | Cost per product line through submission, and what ongoing monitoring costs after clearance. |
| Published pricing | Public list price: not published. Manufacturer quotes are custom. |
Provider buyers comparing hospital IoMT tools should confirm they are not evaluating an OEM product by mistake.
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get MedCrypt to function | |
| Active medical device product lines in regulatory scope | Hospital IoMT buyers are the wrong seat. |
| Product security and regulatory owners | FDA cybersecurity work needs people with clear ownership. |
| Architecture and SBOM inputs for threat models | Empty templates fail review. |
| Willingness to remediate findings before submission | Tooling without fixes does not clear holds. |
| Post-market monitoring plan | Clearance is not the end of device security work. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Map controls to current FDA expectations explicitly | Vague narratives create deficiency letters. |
| Track submission readiness by product | Portfolio heatmaps beat anecdote. |
| Involve critical review early | Late surprises cost launch months. |
| Connect vulnerability intake to release trains | Security debt piles up between versions. |
| Budget monitoring after clearance | Abandoned products reintroduce risk. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You are a hospital buying IoMT visibility for devices you already own. | |
| You have no FDA submission or device manufacturing work. | |
| Product teams will not share architecture details. | |
| Leadership expects overnight clearance guarantees without remediation work. | |
| You only need a managed SOC for clinical networks. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract signed → kickoff | 2-6 weeks (product scope, access to architecture artifacts) |
| 2 | Kickoff → first live workflow | 6-16 weeks depending on submission timeline and gap remediation |
| 3 | First live workflow → steady value | Ongoing across product releases and post-market monitoring |
Methodology
| Weight | Factor | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Customer outcomes | Whether buyers get measurable operational or clinical-workflow results after go-live |
| 30% | Product | Capability depth, reliability, and fit for the job the category actually buys |
| 20% | Implementation | How hard it is to stand up, integrate, train, and stabilize |
| 15% | Pricing clarity | Whether a buyer can model total cost without a mystery quote |
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Highly recommend | Strong outcomes and product with manageable caveats |
| Recommend | Solid fit for the right buyer; know the tradeoffs |
| Conditional | Only with a specific use case or heavy caveats |
| Not recommended | Avoid for most buyers in this category |
Read our full methodology for how we weight scores and assign recommend labels.