Xcigence Cybersecurity Maturity Model Intelligence™
Stop guessing how mature your security program is. Know it — and prove it.
Scans tell you what is broken. They do not tell you whether your program is repeatable, governed, tested and improving. Maturity Intelligence answers that with one defensible number — built from real evidence, gated by real controls, mapped to NIST CSF 2.0.
Cybersecurity Maturity
72/100
Level 4 — Managed
Evidence Confidence
91%
High
Target Maturity
82/100
Gap 10 points
Cyber Risk Score
684
$2.4M ALE
Maturity by domain — current vs target
Illustrative demonstration data. Scores are produced by a deterministic, versioned rules engine — never by an LLM.
The problem with most maturity scores
A score you can defend — not one you hope no one asks about
Most maturity scores in security tooling are weighted checklists. Answer enough questions well and the number goes up, whether or not anything behind those answers is true, tested, or current. Fine for a self-assessment. Not fine for a board deck or a due-diligence packet.
Every Xcigence score is gated. You do not advance a level because your average looks good — a single critical control that is not governed, tested, or evidenced caps the whole domain, and the platform names exactly which control is holding you back and why.
Checklist maturity
- Self-reported answers
- Averages hide critical gaps
- Point-in-time snapshot
- No confidence signal
Gated maturity intelligence
- Evidence with confidence weighting
- Critical control caps the domain
- Recalculated as evidence arrives
- Confidence shown beside every score
What it does
Every capability, built to be evidenced
01
Deterministic, evidence-based scoring
Every control scored across implementation, effectiveness, coverage, governance, measurement, testing, automation and continuous improvement — from real evidence with its own confidence weighting, never self-reported checkboxes. Critical controls carry more weight than routine ones.
02
Six levels, mapped to NIST CSF 2.0
Scores roll up to a 0–5 maturity level per domain and for the organization, with a direct crosswalk to CSF Tiers — Partial, Risk Informed, Repeatable, Adaptive. No new framework for your board to learn.
03
Gate reasons, not just gaps
When a domain cannot reach the next level, the platform names the specific reason: a control below threshold, evidence confidence too low, a critical gap still open. Remediation starts from an answer, not a number.
04
Evidence confidence, visible everywhere
Every score carries a confidence rating, so "well-evidenced and current" is never quietly averaged together with "asserted but thin".
05
Industry benchmarking
See where you sit against anonymized peers in your industry — a percentile, not a guess, and only shown once a statistically meaningful peer set exists.
06
Explain this score — grounded AI
A plain-English narrative of why your score is what it is, built strictly from facts the engine already computed. It never invents a number and never contradicts the underlying data.
07
What-if simulator
Before you commit remediation budget, model the impact: adjust control scores hypothetically and watch the domain and enterprise score move — without touching a real number.
08
Human judgment, fully disclosed
Analysts can override any score, but never silently: every override is logged with who, when and why, and the engine-computed value stays visible alongside it.
09
Prioritized improvement plan
Recommendations ranked by real impact and effort, tied to the specific gaps capping your score — so "what do we fix first" has an actual answer.
10
Vendor, M&A and investor assessment
The same engine extends to third parties you cannot scan — vendors, acquisition targets, portfolio companies. A structured attestation against your most critical controls produces a real, gated score, benchmarked against your portfolio.
11
Board-ready reporting in one click
A branded, board-formatted PDF — overall score, trend, domain breakdown, top recommendations, benchmark standing and any active overrides disclosed — delivered as an attachment, no login needed on their end.
12
Continuous recalculation
Maturity is not a stale snapshot. As new scan evidence arrives, the score recalculates automatically — the dashboard shows the current picture, not last quarter.
Beyond the questionnaire
A continuous maturity intelligence engine
Traditional maturity assessments ask hundreds of questions once a year and average the answers. Xcigence measures, explains, compares, recommends, simulates, monitors, recalculates — and proves improvement.
Step 1
Measure
Deterministic 0–100 score and Level 0–5 from evidence, not questionnaire averages.
Step 2
Explain
Every score answers "why" — supporting evidence, failed gates and confidence.
Step 3
Compare
Native framework terminology and anonymized peer benchmarks where cohorts are large enough.
Step 4
Recommend
Specific, owner-assigned actions ranked by risk reduction and effort.
Step 5
Simulate
Select actions and see the estimated maturity, risk and exposure direction.
Step 6
Monitor
Evidence ages, expires and re-opens recommendations automatically.
Step 7
Recalculate
Evidence → control → capability → domain → enterprise, on every relevant event.
Step 8
Prove
Versioned history shows exactly what improved, when, and on which evidence.
Normalized maturity model
One 0–100 score. Six levels executives can read.
The 0–100 score gives granularity; the 0–5 level gives interpretability. Maturity-level gates mean a high average can never hide a missing critical capability.
- 0
Not Established
Score 0–14
Practices are absent, materially incomplete or unsupported by evidence.
- 1
Initial
Score 15–34
Cybersecurity activities occur inconsistently, reactively or informally.
- 2
Developing
Score 35–54
Processes and controls are increasingly established but remain incomplete or inconsistently applied.
- 3
Defined
Score 55–69
Processes, responsibilities and controls are documented, implemented and consistently applied.
- 4
Managed
Score 70–84
Capabilities are measured, governed and monitored using metrics, risk information and defined accountability.
- 5
Adaptive / Optimized
Score 85–100
Capabilities are continuously measured, tested, automated where appropriate and adjusted to threats and business change.
Risk × Maturity matrix
Maturity is not risk. You need both.
Your Xcigence cyber-risk score answers "how much risk does this organization present right now?" The maturity score answers "how sophisticated, repeatable and governed is its capability to manage that risk?" Plotting both together — alongside annualized loss expectancy — is what turns a maturity assessment into management intelligence.
Read the full comparison: Cybersecurity Maturity vs Cyber Risk Score.
High risk / Low maturity
Immediate intervention.
High risk / High maturity
Advanced program facing significant inherent exposure.
Low risk / Low maturity
Potentially under-prepared, with limited observed exposure today.
Low risk / High maturity
Strong, sustainable cybersecurity posture.
Maturity Improvement Simulator
Pick the actions. See the estimated effect.
Instead of two hundred recommendations, Xcigence ranks the actions that move maturity most per unit of effort. Select any combination below to see the projected result for an illustrative organization.
Current maturity
67
Level 3 — Defined
Projected maturity
70
Level 4 — Managed
- Actions selected
- 2
- Estimated maturity change
- +3
- Estimated risk direction
- Improving
- Estimated exposure direction
- Decreasing
Projections are estimates derived from a deterministic model of control-to-maturity impact on illustrative data. Real maturity only increases when supporting evidence is validated — not when a task is marked complete.
How it works
From evidence to a number your board can trust
Step 1
Evidence accumulates
Scan results, manual assessments and analyst-logged evidence feed the engine continuously, each with its own confidence weighting.
Step 2
Every control is scored
Across eight dimensions, weighted by criticality — automatically and deterministically, the same way every time.
Step 3
Roll-up through gates
Domain and enterprise scores are gated, not averaged. A strong average can never outrun your weakest critical control.
Step 4
You see the full picture
Score, level, NIST CSF Tier, evidence confidence, trend, benchmark standing and a prioritized path to the next level.
Step 5
Report, share, act
One-click board reports, grounded AI narratives, a what-if simulator for planning — and a full audit trail for every human judgment.
Framework Maturity Alignment
Every framework, in its own words.
One verified piece of evidence can satisfy several mapped requirements — but a NIST CSF Tier is not a maturity level, CMMC readiness is not certification, and ISO coverage is not a certificate. Xcigence keeps each framework's native terminology and labels the result type explicitly.
Framework results reflect Xcigence's assessment based upon available evidence and do not constitute certification unless explicitly indicated.
| Framework | Result | Result type |
|---|---|---|
| Xcigence Maturity | 72 / 100 — Level 4, Managed | Maturity model |
| NIST CSF 2.0 | Tier 3 — Repeatable | Framework tiers |
| CIS Controls v8.1 | IG1 100% · IG2 82% · IG3 49% | Control framework |
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | Control coverage 87% | Certification standard |
| CMMC | Estimated Level 2 readiness 84% | Readiness estimate |
Why it matters
One score, four conversations
CISOs and security leaders
A defensible, evidence-backed answer to "how mature are we, really" — one you can walk into a board meeting with.
Boards and executives
A single number that means the same thing every quarter, with the trend line and benchmark to know if the investment is working.
Risk and compliance teams
A maturity posture mapped directly to NIST CSF, with every override and judgment call fully logged.
M&A and third-party risk teams
The same rigor applied to vendors and acquisition targets, without waiting on their cooperation to run a scan.
Why it is different
Maturity you can defend to an auditor
Evidence-driven, not self-attested
Questionnaire answers are treated as low-confidence input. Verified documents, audit artifacts and API telemetry carry the weight.
Maturity gates stop averaging from hiding weakness
A domain can score 82 and still be capped at Level 3 when a critical control is untested. You see the cap and the reason.
Confidence travels with every number
Maturity 74/100 with 91% confidence is a different statement from 74/100 on unverified answers. We label provisional results as provisional.
Connected to risk and dollars
Maturity is shown beside your Xcigence cyber-risk score and annualized loss expectancy — so the board sees capability, exposure and cost together.
Frameworks kept in their own words
NIST CSF tiers stay tiers, CMMC stays a readiness estimate, ISO stays coverage. Nothing is presented as certification unless it is one.
Deterministic scores, AI explanations
Numeric scores come from a versioned rules engine. AI only translates the structured result into plain language.
Continue the conversation
See where your security program really stands.
Maturity Intelligence turns “we think we're doing okay” into a number your board can trust, your team can act on, and your auditors can verify.