DataGuard ISMS vs SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

DataGuard ISMS

The asset register is real — owners per asset, tagging, bulk import, asset-to-risk linking and dependency visualization — and risks sit in a central matrix with mitigation tasks, status tracking and pre-built libraries. Incident handling appears as configurable workflows plus a security-incidents module, but we found no public information on a documented risk methodology, inherited protection needs across asset relations, NIS2 24h/72h reporting clocks, or risk acceptance with a named accepting owner. A workable mid-market core, not yet a certifiable risk backbone.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

The evidence markets '70% schneller zur ISO 27001' and '100% Erfolgsrate', but not one word on risk methodology, asset inventory, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance, or incident workflows — and a claim of 'vollständige Abdeckung aller NIS2-Anforderungen' with zero evidence of 24h/72h reporting clocks is exactly the checklist theater I reject. What is evidenced is a step-by-step assistant, central task management and a policy generator: more than a marketing chapter, less than a flat risk list with asset import.

DataGuard ISMS

Measures carry owners, implementation status, effectiveness assessment and automatic evidence mapping, and one measure can serve several frameworks — genuinely better than a checklist. The captured pages explain all 93 Annex A controls and what a statement of applicability must contain, but as guidance content; we found no public information on generating a statement of applicability from live control status, on delegation and escalation, or on internal audit workflows with findings management.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

Controls exist as mappable objects ('Control-Cross-Mapping', custom frameworks) and measures live in a central task list with status and automated notifications — that is a catalog with status fields. No SoA generation, no measure ownership or delegation, no internal audit workflow or findings management appears anywhere in the evidence, which caps it at the checklist tier.

DataGuard ISMS

DSGVO, ISO 27001, TISAX, NIS2 and the EU AI Act are supported, and the cross-mapping is productized rather than promised: the same measure links to multiple frameworks, assets map directly to measures from ISO 27001, NIS2 and TISAX, and a published table maps NIS2 requirements onto ISO 27001:2022 clauses and Annex A. ISO 27001:2022 content including the eleven new controls shows the catalogue moving with the standard. We found no public information on DORA, SOC 2 or BSI IT-Grundschutz, and the measures page itself says further frameworks follow soon.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

Coverage is genuinely broad and current: 10+ standards including ISO 27001/27002/27018, TISAX, DSGVO; NIS2 launched Q2 2023 as one of the first; DORA, NISG, EU AI Act and ISO 9001 shipped as late as 2025 — visible maintenance as regimes move, with cross-mapping on one data basis. It stops short of rubric level 8 for me because the mapping is a slogan, no BSI IT-Grundschutz appears despite serving KRITIS customers, and 'vollständige Abdeckung aller DORA-Anforderungen' is bravado no vendor can cash.

DataGuard ISMS

Automated custom reports in minutes, real-time dashboards for gaps and planned activities, automatic assignment of evidence to requirements, and a customer case describing more than 140 evidence artifacts for a TISAX assessment — more than ad-hoc attachments. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or a defensible answer to the state on a given date, so readiness looks strong at the reporting layer without the archival guarantees a certification body asks for.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

The only audit-readiness substance is a marketing success rate ('100% Erfolgsrate in vergangenen Audits') and a policy generator that pushes out documents. The evidence is entirely silent on revision-safe history, evidence attachment per control, audit-scoped packs, auditor access roles and management reporting — I cannot defend a certificate recertification to a TÜV auditor with a slogan.

DataGuard ISMS

Named connectors exist — Jira and Asana connected in under fifteen minutes, automated Azure asset updates, CRM consent flows with continuous synchronization — alongside a listed API and AI-supported automation. We found no public information on directory or SSO/SCIM connectors, a CMDB feed, webhooks, or the depth of what the API exposes; evidence automation is asserted only at the level of documentation, evidence collection and control monitoring.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

'Über 60 API-Anbindungen' with Jira named gives a real ticketing connector at claim level, and automated e-mail notifications plus a step-by-step assistant are the automation on offer. Nothing on directory import, CMDB, cloud/endpoint feeds, SSO/SCIM or automated evidence tests — this is reminders and guided workflows, not feeding from the live IT estate.

DataGuard ISMS

A German GmbH with a Munich commercial register entry, named managing directors and DPO contact points is the right jurisdiction for the system that holds the risk register. The privacy policy relies on standard contractual clauses for recipients outside the EU, and we found no public information on hosting location, a published data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, or the ownership behind the Series B investors; a trust center is referenced but its contents are not published on the captured pages.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

The entity is solidly German — secjur GmbH, Registergericht Hamburg, HRB 170383, DE VAT — with a 'Hosted in Germany' claim, and the named investors are Berlin and Lisbon, not US. But hosting is an unnamed claim, and the evidence contains no published DPA, no TOMs and no subprocessor list whatsoever; an undocumented subprocessor chain for the system holding my risk register does not reach rubric level 5.

DataGuard ISMS

The captured pricing page lists Base, Pro and Enterprise with their inclusions, and each plan ends in a request for an offer — we found no published figures for any plan, edition or module. The only numbers are marketing claims such as "Bis zu 50 % günstiger als externe Berater" and a "Keine versteckten Kosten" promise on the demo form, so the real invoice remains a sales conversation even though the plan architecture helps a buyer pre-scope.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

Not a single euro figure anywhere — only percentage-savings slogans ('50% günstiger', 'bis zu 67% günstiger') and an unquantified 'unlimitierte Beratung zum Festpreis'. A buyer cannot compute any part of the invoice from these pages; the disclosed flat-fee consulting model is the one point above pure zero.