If you’re building a post-quantum migration plan, you’ve hit the same wall everyone else has: nobody can give you a straight answer about which vendors in your stack are actually shipping PQC, which ones are talking about it, and which ones haven’t said a word.
The information exists — scattered across blog posts, press releases, release notes, and roadmap documents. Assembling it into something actionable takes weeks of research per vendor category. Most security teams don’t have that time, so they end up relying on vendor claims they can’t verify.
In November 2024, DGAP (the German Council on Foreign Relations) published a policy brief by Weber and Pericàs that attempted exactly this mapping across browsers, cloud services, VPNs, messaging, video conferencing, email, and remote access software. It was useful work. Fifteen months later, it’s already wrong in material ways — Safari is no longer “Quantum Insecure” (it ships ML-KEM as of September 2025), Firefox is no longer “Experimental” (it defaults to ML-KEM in stable), and Microsoft’s “Experimental” rating based on SymCrypt availability obscures the fact that none of its flagship products actually negotiate PQC at the endpoint. More importantly, DGAP’s framework — Secure/Experimental/Insecure — is a flat snapshot. It can’t tell you whether a vendor is getting better or worse, and it doesn’t cover the categories where enterprise HNDL risk actually concentrates: databases, networking hardware, CDNs, and cloud storage.
We built what comes next. The PQC Vendor Scorecard maps 28+ major technology vendors across seven product categories against CISA’s post-quantum deployment framework, then checks their announcements against what’s actually observable in TLS handshakes. The full report is available as a free download — no gate, no email capture.
| Category | Readiness | The “Reality Gap” |
|---|---|---|
| Browsers / CDNs | High | Client-side is solved; certificates are the bottleneck. |
| Cloud Infrastructure | Medium | Edge services are ready; core data platforms are trailing. |
| Networking | Fragmented | Fortinet is shipping; others are strategizing or using QKD. |
| Databases | None | Critical HNDL risk with almost zero native PQC support. |
| SaaS / Collaboration | None | Zero-control zone; entirely dependent on slow vendor cycles. |
Three findings stood out.
The perimeter is protected. The crown jewels aren’t.
Cloud APIs, browsers, CDNs, and messaging apps have real PQC deployments. Cloudflare reports 52% of its TLS traffic using post-quantum key exchange. Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all negotiate ML-KEM by default. AWS has PQC on KMS, S3, and its load balancers. But databases — where your most sensitive long-lived data actually sits — are uniformly unprotected. SQL Server, RDS, Aurora, MongoDB Atlas, Snowflake: none negotiate PQC at the database endpoint. The data most worth harvesting today for decryption later has the least protection.
The library is ready. The product isn’t.
Microsoft has ML-KEM in its core cryptographic library since November 2025. It’s available on every Windows Server and .NET application. But SQL Server doesn’t use it. Azure SQL doesn’t negotiate it. Teams doesn’t either. The gap between “our crypto library supports it” and “your connection to our product uses it” can be years. This pattern repeats across every major platform vendor. Announcements about foundational crypto support are real — but the products you actually connect to haven’t caught up.
Your SaaS vendors control your timeline.
For infrastructure you own, you can deploy PQC when the technology is ready. For SaaS, you can’t. Your Salesforce connection gets PQC when Salesforce ships it. No proxy workaround exists — the endpoint is vendor-controlled. And among enterprise SaaS vendors, not one has deployed PQC to production endpoints. Most haven’t published a timeline. BCG’s November 2025 analysis explicitly categorizes platforms like Salesforce, Workday, and Teams as systems that “can be addressed later.” Whether that’s the right risk call depends on how long the data in those systems needs to stay confidential.
The scorecard also reveals a clear leader in networking hardware (Fortinet, shipping NIST-compliant ML-KEM since July 2025 while competitors remain at the announcement stage), maps the cloud storage gap (S3 has PQC; Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox, and Box don’t), and documents exactly where each vendor sits on key exchange versus digital signatures.
It includes detailed vendor assessments, comparison tables for each category, a methodology note, and a complete source list. We’ll update it quarterly as the landscape changes.
Download the PQC Vendor Scorecard: Q1 2026 Edition →
The scorecard tells you where the industry is. pqprobe tells you where your organization is — and whether you’re getting better or worse. A vendor announcing PQC support doesn’t mean your specific endpoints are negotiating it. The only way to know is to scan, track, and measure over time.