Migration Risk Report — $150
Send a list of up to 25 technologies and versions. Get back a dated document showing exactly what is already unsupported, what loses support in the next twelve months, how many days remain on each, and the order to deal with them — with an official source link on every line.
Read a full sample report first Real dates, invented company. Nothing withheld.
Who it is for
Someone accountable for a stack of roughly 10–60 technologies who currently finds out about end-of-life dates from an auditor, a customer security questionnaire, or a build that suddenly stops. Typically a platform lead, an engineering manager without a dedicated platform team, or whoever drew the short straw on SOC 2 or ISO 27001 evidence.
Not for you if you already run software asset management or lifecycle tooling that tracks this. This duplicates it, and I would rather say so than take $150.
The problem it solves
The information is public but scattered across dozens of vendor pages in different formats, and nobody schedules an afternoon to collect it. So the question "is anything we run already unsupported" stays unanswered until something forces it — and then it needs answering in a week instead of a quarter. Across the products tracked here, 78% of all tracked releases are already past their published end-of-life date, so the answer is rarely "nothing."
Exactly what you receive
- A dated document — the format shown in the sample, nothing held back
- An executive summary you can forward without editing
- Every technology sorted into urgent / upcoming / watch / clear / unknown
- Exact end-of-life dates and days remaining for each
- An official source link on every factual line, so nothing has to be taken on trust
- A recommended order of action, ordered by exposure then deadline
- Recorded shutdown, acquisition, breach or pricing events for those vendors, where any exist
- Explicit limitations and assumptions, including what was not found
Why it is worth $150
Checking 25 technologies properly — finding each vendor's lifecycle page, reading the support matrix, working out which of your versions it covers, and writing it up so someone else can act on it — is two to three hours of unglamorous work. At any loaded engineering rate that is several hundred dollars of time, and it is time that reliably loses to whatever is on fire that week. $150 buys the output without the afternoon.
The honest version: if your stack is small, current, or already tracked by a tool, this is not worth $150 to you. Use the free checker instead and keep your money.
Delivery
Within five business days of receiving your list, by email. You pay after delivery, not before. If the report tells you nothing you did not already know, do not pay — and tell me why, which is worth more to me at this stage than the $150. No payment details are collected anywhere on this site.
What you need to provide
- A list of up to 25 technologies with versions — e.g.
python 3.9,postgresql 14,kubernetes 1.28. Versions are what make it specific; without them you get a product-level answer. - An email address to send it to.
- Optionally, what prompted the question — an audit, a questionnaire, a migration — so the summary is written for that reader.
Nothing else. No access, no credentials, no scanning, no call.
What is not automated yet — read before paying
The report is assembled by hand. The archive and lifecycle data are automated; turning them into your document is not.
There is no dashboard, no login and no API. You receive a document, not access to a product.
Ongoing alerts are not included. Re-running it later means asking again.
Coverage is strongest for languages, databases, infrastructure and developer tooling. Business SaaS is weakly covered, and I will tell you before taking payment if your stack falls in that gap.
Request one
Nothing is charged now and no payment details are collected. I reply with whether your stack is inside the coverage I can genuinely deliver — and if it is not, I will say so.
The archive currently holds 1,272 recorded events and tracks 201 deadlines over the next twelve months. Enough to produce a useful report for the right stack, and not enough for every stack.