TrustAtlas Procurement Pack
← Full vendor profile   

Krutrim

hybrid · India , Bengaluru · founded 2023 · subsidiary of ANI Technologies (Ola)

Employees: 51-200 · Stage: Series A · Funding: $230,000,000

64.1
high
default-balanced
composite score

Ola subsidiary that pivoted from sovereign LLM development to AI cloud services in late 2025 after a strategic overhaul. Pauses on chip and consumer chatbot work, headcount reduced from ~550 to ~150. Now serves ~25 enterprise customers across telecom, finance, and healthcare with Indic-language model APIs and GPU compute.

Analyst summary
Krutrim's August-2025-to-May-2026 trajectory is the cautionary tale of the 2025 LLM hangover: headcount fell from ~550 to ~150, the consumer chatbot Kruti was shut down, chip and frontier-model work paused, and the company pivoted to AI cloud services. FY2026 revenue grew threefold to ~$31.5M with a first profit, but Inc42 reported that 90% of FY2025 revenue came from intra-Ola-group entities — a related-party concentration that should make any independent buyer pause. India's first GenAI unicorn now competes on infrastructure rather than models.
High-elevated risk. The post-pivot Krutrim is a credible Indic cloud vendor in narrow contexts, but the combination of related-party revenue concentration, undocumented compliance posture, and recent strategic upheaval make it a much weaker pick than Sarvam for independent buyers. Worth tracking; not currently a safe primary dependency.
Rating: caution

Compliance posture

SOC 2 Type IINo / not disclosed
ISO 27001No / not disclosed
ISO 42001 (AI management system)No / not disclosed
FedRAMP authorizedNo / not disclosed
GDPR compliantNo / not disclosed
CCPA compliantNo / not disclosed
HIPAA compliantNo / not disclosed
NIST AI RMF alignedNo / not disclosed
CSA STAR certifiedNo / not disclosed
EU AI Act classificationnot_applicable

Data handling

Trains on user dataunclear
Outputs feed model improvementunknown
Data retention periodNot publicly documented
Can delete user data on requestNo / not disclosed
Default data residencyIN
Encryption at restYes (TLS in transit; at-rest standard not disclosed)
Encryption in transitYes
DPA availableNo / not disclosed
Public subprocessor listNo / not disclosed
HIPAA BAA availableNo / not disclosed

IP profile

User owns outputsunclear
Vendor claims output rightsNo / not disclosed
Input IP protectionunclear
Indemnification offeredNo / not disclosed
Copyright shield programNo / not disclosed
Commercial use permittedYes
Training data provenancenot_disclosed
Known IP lawsuitsNo / not disclosed

Jurisdiction

Incorporation countryIN
Incorporation jurisdiction riskmoderate
Subject to US jurisdictionNo / not disclosed
Subject to EU jurisdictionNo / not disclosed
Subject to China jurisdictionNo / not disclosed
Subject to Russia jurisdictionNo / not disclosed
Government data access riskmoderate
Five Eyes alignedNo / not disclosed
Adequate privacy jurisdictionNo / not disclosed

Governance

Publishes model cardsNo / not disclosed
Publishes transparency reportsNo / not disclosed
Has AI ethics boardNo / not disclosed
Safety testing disclosedNo / not disclosed
Red-teaming programNo / not disclosed
Government contractsNo / not disclosed
Terms of servicehttps://www.olakrutrim.com/terms
Privacy policyhttps://www.olakrutrim.com/privacy

Incidents on record

No incidents on file.

OWASP LLM Top 10 cross-walk

TrustAtlas dimensions that materially address each OWASP risk. Use to translate this vendor's compliance posture and data-handling stance into the application-security vocabulary your security team already uses.

LLM01
Prompt Injection
User-supplied prompts manipulate model behaviour to bypass intended controls.
SecurityTransparencyDependency chain
LLM02
Sensitive Information Disclosure
Models leak PII, PHI, secrets, or proprietary data through outputs.
Data handlingIP exposureJurisdiction
LLM03
Supply Chain
Risk propagates from upstream models, datasets, plug-ins, and vendors.
Dependency chainBusiness stabilitySecurity
LLM04
Data and Model Poisoning
Adversarial training data or fine-tuning input degrades model integrity.
Data handlingTransparencySecurity
LLM05
Improper Output Handling
Downstream systems blindly trust model output, enabling injection downstream.
IP exposureTransparency
LLM06
Excessive Agency
Agents granted overbroad tool, identity, or permission scopes cause harm.
Dependency chainTransparencyJurisdiction
LLM07
System Prompt Leakage
System prompts containing secrets or logic are extracted via crafted input.
Data handlingTransparency
LLM08
Vector and Embedding Weaknesses
Vector stores and RAG pipelines leak or contaminate retrieved context.
Data handlingSecurity
LLM09
Misinformation
Hallucinated, biased, or fabricated outputs treated as authoritative.
TransparencyRegulatory complianceBusiness stability
LLM10
Unbounded Consumption
Cost, denial-of-service, and resource-exhaustion attacks against LLM endpoints.
SecurityBusiness stability

Full framework reference: https://trustatlas.pages.dev/framework/owasp-llm-top-10

NIST AI RMF cross-walk

How each NIST AI RMF function is supported by the dimensions TrustAtlas scores.

GOVERN
Govern
Establish AI governance structure: policies, roles, accountability.
Regulatory complianceJurisdictionTransparencyBusiness stability
MAP
Map
Establish AI context: intended purpose, use cases, capabilities, and risks.
TransparencyDependency chainData handlingIP exposure
MEASURE
Measure
Quantitative + qualitative risk assessment: testing, benchmarks, monitoring.
SecurityData handlingTransparency
MANAGE
Manage
Treat identified risks: mitigation, controls, incident response, lifecycle.
Regulatory complianceSecurityDependency chainBusiness stability

Full framework reference: https://trustatlas.pages.dev/framework/nist-ai-rmf

Cited sources

FieldSource
governance.open_source_contributions https://ai-labs.olakrutrim.com/
Verified 2026-05-15 by analyst
jurisdiction_profile.geopolitical_risk_notes https://inc42.com/features/bhavish-aggarwal-ola-krutrim-ai-ambitions-rut/
Verified 2026-04-30 by analyst
vendors.company_stability_score https://www.medianama.com/2026/05/223-krutrim-ai-cloud-chip-ai-model-work/
Verified 2026-05-06 by analyst
vendors.employee_count_range https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/05/indias-first-genai-unicorn-shifts-to-cloud-services-as-ai-model-ambitions-face-reality/
Verified 2026-05-05 by analyst
vendors.parent_company https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366629172/Olas-Krutrim-builds-AI-first-sovereign-cloud-for-India
Verified 2026-04-22 by analyst

Questions to ask before signing

Vendor-agnostic baseline. Send these to the vendor and require written answers before contract.

  1. 01. Provide your most recent SOC 2 Type II report (with bridge letter if applicable).
  2. 02. Describe your training-data provenance and customer opt-out mechanics in writing.
  3. 03. List all sub-processors and confirm notification policy for material additions.
  4. 04. Confirm BAA availability and signed-BAA process if we process PHI.
  5. 05. Describe rate-limiting, quota, and circuit-breaker controls protecting our usage.
  6. 06. Provide your model card or equivalent disclosure documenting intended use, limitations, and known failure modes.
  7. 07. Describe your prompt-injection defences and red-team posture against OWASP LLM Top 10 risks.
  8. 08. Confirm data residency options and which sub-regions our data may touch.
  9. 09. Provide incident-response SLAs, security-event notification timelines, and the most recent pen-test report summary.
  10. 10. Confirm output ownership terms and any indemnification or copyright-shield programs available.
  11. 11. Describe acquisition-risk safeguards and what happens to our data on a change of control.
  12. 12. List foundation-model dependencies and how upstream-model risk is mitigated.

Methodology + caveats

Composite scores use the default-balanced weight profile (25% data handling, 20% IP exposure, 15% jurisdiction, 15% security, 10% regulatory compliance, 8% transparency, 5% business stability, 2% dependency chain). All facts are sourced from the vendor's own public disclosures, public regulatory filings, or reputable secondary reporting — see the cited sources table above. This pack is decision-support material, not legal advice or audit evidence.