The only multi-modal drone threat intelligence platform. Quantified risk, actionable insight — from the team building autonomous counter-UAS.
Most organizations have no way to quantify their drone risk. Insurance underwriters have no actuarial data. Security planners have no threat baseline. We fix that.
No public loss dataset exists to price this peril against.
The FAA publishes reported UAS sightings near airports as public records.
Threats invisible to conventional security.
Risk scores, detection curves, cost models.
The quarterly intelligence report: risk scores by facility type, detection gap analysis, and cost-of-incident modeling — the baseline your planning has been missing.
A facility-specific risk score, blind-spot analysis by approach vector, warning-time quantification, and countermeasure recommendations.
Every site on one book scored the same way, ranked against each other, and tracked quarter over quarter — with a comparability check that flags when sites were scored under different model versions. Built for operators carrying many facilities and for the brokers who place them.
The structured dataset: detection probability matrices across sensor, threat, and conditions; an attack-profile database spanning 15+ drone classes and 20+ attack patterns; incident cost models by facility type.
Real-time risk scoring, programmatic access to threat models, detection curves, and cost projections — built for insurance platforms, risk modeling firms, and security operations centers.
Sensor fusion architecture reviews, counter-UAS program design, SBIR and proposal technical support, expert witness and regulatory testimony.
A sample excerpt from the Q3 2026 DTRI Quarterly Report: risk scores for three facility types — logistics warehouse, commercial airport, active launch complex — the RF-silent detection gap analysis, and the cost-exchange framework underwriters use to price sustainable defense.
The Drone Threat Risk Index has a dedicated home: droneriskindex.com — scores, methodology, and how to buy.
Placing or renewing a risk? The broker intake form takes about ten minutes — most of it answers from the submission you already have — and comes back as a $4,500 Exposure Snapshot on that facility in about a week. Operators scoring their own site start with the facility intake form instead.
Our intelligence is derived from a calibrated 7-modality sensor fusion simulation — the same core inside our counter-UAS platform. Grounded in real sensor physics, validated against documented incidents, continuously updated.
The differentiator: we model RF-silent threats no other intelligence source can.
A risk score nobody can inspect is an opinion with a number attached. These are the five components of a DTRI site score and the weight each carries in the production model. They are published so a reader can argue with the method rather than take the result on trust — and so that a score can be reproduced.
| Component | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Detection gap | 30% | Derived from the sensing matrix — the component a site can actually change |
| Threat likelihood | 25% | Sector base rate, regional history, public profile |
| Accessibility | 20% | Viable launch positions, concealment, reachability |
| Consequence | 20% | Modeled loss across asset, operational, contractual and occupancy components |
| Response capability | 5% | Alert routing, authorized actions, exercised procedures |
No identified pathway of concern at current posture.
Identifiable gaps; a planned program is appropriate.
Material gaps against credible threat classes.
Significant exposure across multiple components.
Every input carries a provenance label — measured, modeled, reported, or customer-supplied — and a record of whether it was applied directly or extrapolated beyond its original scope. Each component carries a confidence grade. Scoring weights are locked in the production model, and every export records the model version and a configuration hash, so any score can be re-derived exactly as it was issued.
An assessment that identifies detection gaps is being written by a company that also intends to sell equipment which closes them. That is a real conflict and we would rather state it than have it discovered. The method is built so the conflict cannot reach the number.
Recommendations describe what a gap requires, never what we sell. The release gate scans the recommendations section for vendor names and blocks delivery if it finds one — ours included.
Production scoring weights are fixed and published above. Every export carries the model version and a configuration hash, so a score cannot be quietly tuned toward an outcome.
Delivery requires sign-off by an analyst who did not produce the assessment, against a release gate that checks provenance, confidence and unmet standards.
The index scores the posture that exists at your site. It does not assume, require or favor any particular sensor, and no Volantyx equipment is needed to act on a finding.
6 CFR 124.4(b) prohibits contractor-operated mitigation. Our scope is detection and cueing; an assessment is not a mitigation plan or a legal opinion.
Components, weights and bands are published. Each input records where it came from and whether it was applied directly or extrapolated, so a third party can retrace the reasoning.
Actuarial-grade drone risk data where none has existed.
A defensible threat baseline for budget and board conversations.
Airports, spaceports, data centers, utilities — scored by approach vector.
Threat models for proposals and program justification.
DHS, FAA, DOE — quantified inputs for policy and protection.
White-label intelligence behind your recommendations.
Threat and regulatory context comes from primary official sources rather than from purchased market research. These establish the operating environment an assessment is written into; the per-site environmental and airspace data the workbench fetches for each facility is separate and is recorded, source by source, in the evidence register of every report.
The broadcast identification requirement, and what it does and does not reveal. Source →
Frames UAS risk assessment as an owner and operator responsibility. Source →
The federal framing of detection, tracking, identification and response. Source →
Documents the operational, coordination and authority gaps around unauthorized flights. Source →
The EU policy area covering drone and counter-drone security. Source →
Business hours, Eastern.
Saint Petersburg, FL 33701