Skip to main content

Security report for version.compare

Private by Design, LLC · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Version.Compare is an early-stage technology company offering a SaaS product focused on continuous A/B testing and conversion optimization for websites. The service is currently in private alpha and targets website owners and marketers who want to improve visitor-to-customer conversion rates through automated experimentation. The website provides clear instructions for integration via a small embed script or React component, emphasizing ease of use and performance. Technically, the website uses modern JavaScript and React frameworks, with assets served from a globally distributed CDN (bunny.net), ensuring fast load times and good mobile optimization. The site is simple, with no complex CMS or analytics integrations detected, reflecting a lean early-stage product approach. From a security perspective, the domain is registered with privacy protection and strong domain status locks, indicating legitimate ownership and protection against unauthorized transfers or deletions. However, the website lacks published privacy, cookie, or security policies, and no security headers were detected, which limits its compliance posture and security maturity. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided. Overall, the website is professional and functional but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance, security best practices, and transparency to improve trust and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

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

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

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

Keep watching version.compare

This scan found 24 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
50
Average
55

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

Version.Compare operates in the competitive technology sector of conversion rate optimization tools. Its business model is SaaS-based, focusing on continuous experimentation to optimize website messaging. The company is small and newly founded in 2025, positioning itself as an innovative early entrant with a private alpha product. The target customers are website owners and marketers seeking data-driven conversion improvements. The company uses privacy protection for domain registration, which is common for startups. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries. The product's simplicity and clear integration steps suggest a focus on developer-friendly adoption and scalability.

Security posture

The security posture of Version.Compare is moderate. The domain registration includes strong transfer and deletion protections, which is a positive indicator. However, the absence of DNSSEC reduces domain security. The website does not publish privacy or cookie policies, nor does it provide incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, which are important for compliance and trust. No security headers were detected, and SSL configuration details are unknown from the data provided. The lack of analytics or tracking scripts reduces privacy risks but also limits insights into user behavior. Overall, the site should improve its security headers, enable DNSSEC, and publish relevant policies to enhance its security maturity and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Implement and publish a security policy and incident response plan with clear contact channels.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to harden the website.
  5. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Private by Design, LLC
Description
Version Compare is a service that continuously monitors and adjusts website messaging to determine which version converts visitors into customers more reliably. It is currently in private alpha and offers an easy integration via a small embed script or React component.
Key services
Continuous A/B testing, Conversion tracking, Variant performance optimization
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, React, CDN (bunny.net)
Frameworks
React
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Domain status includes clientTransferProhibited, clientDeleteProhibited, serverTransferProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. Contact information limited to a single email address for inquiries.
  4. No phone numbers or physical addresses provided.
  5. No social media links detected.
  6. No security or incident response policies published.
  7. Website uses a small embed script served from a CDN for performance.
  8. Content is focused on explaining the product and integration steps.
  9. No analytics or tracking scripts detected beyond the embed script.
  10. No forms or data collection fields present on the site.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including JavaScript and React, with assets served from a performant CDN (bunny.net). The embed script is lightweight (<3KB) and globally distributed, supporting fast load times and good mobile responsiveness. The site structure is simple and clear, with no detected CMS or heavy frameworks beyond React. SEO and accessibility are basic but adequate for an early-stage product. No analytics or tracking services were detected, indicating minimal user tracking. The lack of security headers and DNSSEC are technical gaps. Overall, the technical implementation is solid for a private alpha SaaS product but has room for security and compliance improvements.
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 version.compare. 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 version.compare.

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.