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 in use on clinical networks.
Strong fit
- Medical device manufacturers preparing FDA cybersecurity submissions
- Device maker security teams that need threat modeling and vulnerability monitoring
- Buyers who measure success by readiness for FDA clearance, not hospital security tickets
Weak fit
- Hospitals looking to track the connected medical devices they own
- Buyers who want a managed threat detection service for clinical networks
- Teams with no device manufacturing or FDA submission work
Bottom line
MedCrypt is worth using for medical device manufacturers that need cybersecurity tools for FDA submissions and product security. It is not built for hospital security teams. Hospital teams buying device visibility should compare Cylera, Claroty, Cynerio, and Asimily.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
MedCrypt serves medical device makers that must meet FDA cybersecurity expectations and keep products secure after clearance.
Its work centers on FDA-ready paperwork and ongoing device security. That comes before the hospital device security tools most provider security leaders look at.
We include it because healthcare cybersecurity buyers sometimes need the device maker side explained next to hospital products.
Buyers should ask about readiness for submissions, the software bill of materials and vulnerability process, and who owns what at the manufacturer. Network monitoring on a nursing floor is not the question.
Setup follows product security and regulatory timelines more than hospital network projects, and pricing is custom.
Its buyers are a narrower group than those for Claroty or Cylera, so most hospital security teams should keep comparing Cylera, Claroty, Cynerio, and Asimily.
MedCrypt's score reflects solid product depth for device makers, with a narrow fit for providers by design.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| MedCrypt | 7.1 | 6.9 |
| Ordr | 7.5 | 7.2 |
| Cylera | 7.4 | 7.0 |
| Claroty | 7.5 | 7.1 |
| Asimily | 7.2 | 6.8 |
| Cynerio | 7.3 | 7.0 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Platform and service packages for device makers. It is not sold like hospital device security software. |
| What usually drives cost | Number of device products covered, how much help with submissions you need, and monitoring after clearance. |
| What to ask before you buy | Cost per product line through submission, and what ongoing monitoring costs after clearance. |
| Published pricing | MedCrypt does not publish prices. Quotes for device makers 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 that need FDA review | Hospitals buying device security are the wrong buyer. |
| Product security and regulatory owners | FDA cybersecurity work needs people with clear ownership. |
| Design details and a software bill of materials for threat models | Blank templates fail review. |
| A willingness to fix findings before submission | Tools without fixes do not clear FDA holds. |
| A plan for monitoring after launch | Clearance is not the end of device security work. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Tie each control clearly to current FDA expectations | Vague write-ups lead to FDA deficiency letters. |
| Track how ready each product is for submission | A product-by-product view beats guesswork. |
| Bring in critical reviewers early | Late surprises push launches back months. |
| Tie vulnerability reports to your release schedule | Unfixed security issues pile up between versions. |
| Budget for monitoring after clearance | Products left alone bring the risk back. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You are a hospital that wants to track connected devices you own. | |
| You have no FDA submission or device manufacturing work. | |
| Product teams will not share architecture details. | |
| Leaders expect guaranteed clearance overnight without fixing anything. | |
| You only need a managed security operations center for clinical networks. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | From signing to kickoff | 2-6 weeks to define products and get access to design documents |
| 2 | From kickoff to first use | 6-16 weeks, depending on the submission timeline and fixing gaps |
| 3 | From first use to steady results | Ongoing through product releases and monitoring after launch |
Leadership
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 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.