Skip to main content

Security report for userlytics.com

Userlytics · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

Userlytics operates a sophisticated SaaS platform specializing in remote user testing and UX research, targeting UX professionals, product managers, and marketers. The company positions itself as an established player offering a comprehensive suite of testing methodologies including moderated, unmoderated, and prototype testing, along with participant recruitment and UX consulting services. The website reflects a mature digital presence with professional branding and consistent messaging aligned with its business focus. Technically, the site leverages WordPress CMS enhanced with NitroPack for performance optimization, integrates Google Tag Manager and Optimize for analytics and experimentation, and uses Zendesk for customer support. The infrastructure supports fast loading times, excellent mobile responsiveness, and good accessibility standards. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and no visible vulnerabilities, although explicit security policies and incident response information are absent. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy, warranting further verification. Overall, Userlytics presents a trustworthy and professional online presence with room for improvement in transparency around security and domain registration.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  2. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

  3. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching userlytics.com

This scan found 12 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. See sample alerts.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
0
Security headers
60
Email security
93
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
69

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Userlytics targets the technology sector with a focus on UX research tools, operating a SaaS business model. Its competitive advantage lies in offering a versatile platform supporting multiple testing approaches and participant recruitment, appealing to a broad audience of UX professionals. The company maintains active social media channels and employs modern marketing and analytics tools, indicating a growth-oriented strategy. The lack of visible parent or subsidiary relationships suggests an independent operation. The website content and technical sophistication reflect a medium-sized enterprise with a solid market position. Trust signals such as ISO 27001 certification and GDPR compliance enhance credibility. The company could benefit from enhanced transparency in domain registration and security disclosures to strengthen stakeholder confidence.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and no exposed sensitive information. Use of Google reCAPTCHA and asynchronous loading of support chat scripts further reduce attack surface. However, the absence of a dedicated security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure mechanism limits transparency and preparedness perception. No DNSSEC information or WHOIS registrant data is available, which could be a risk factor. Overall, the site is secure for users but would benefit from publishing formal security documentation and establishing clear incident response contacts to align with best practices and regulatory expectations.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and user trust.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Provide contact information for a Data Protection Officer or security team to enhance compliance and communication.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and integrations to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance cookie consent mechanisms with detailed information on data retention and third-party sharing.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Userlytics
Description
Powerful user testing platform to get real customer feedback remotely. Improve UX (User Experience) and usability for your websites and apps.
Key services
Moderated Testing, Unmoderated Testing, Prototype Testing, Participant Recruitment, UX Consulting
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, NitroPack, Google Tag Manager, Google Optimize, Zendesk Chat, Apollo.io tracking, Smart Slider 3 Pro, Google Fonts, FontAwesome, Lato font, Roboto font
Frameworks
WordPress, NitroPack optimization
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security headers
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA
  • Zendesk chat loaded asynchronously

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Apollo.io
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Apollo.io, Google Optimize
Marketing tools
Apollo.io, Zendesk Chat
Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
  3. WHOIS data is missing or domain not registered, which is unusual for an established business.
  4. Strong use of modern web technologies and optimization tools.
  5. Good privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  6. No explicit security or incident response pages found.
  7. Social media presence on Facebook and Twitter (X).
  8. No exposed sensitive data or obvious vulnerabilities detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with extensive use of NitroPack for performance optimization, resulting in fast load times and excellent mobile responsiveness. Integration of Google Tag Manager, Google Optimize, and Apollo.io indicates advanced analytics and marketing capabilities. The site uses modern fonts and iconography (Lato, Roboto, FontAwesome) and features a responsive mega menu for navigation clarity. Hosting details are not explicit, but CDN usage suggests a distributed infrastructure. Accessibility features are present but could be further enhanced. Overall, the technical implementation is robust, supporting a professional user experience with scalable infrastructure. Opportunities exist to improve technical SEO and accessibility compliance further.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with userlytics.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review userlytics.com.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.