DataGuard ISMS vs SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

DataGuard ISMS

A structured asset register with owners, tags and visualised dependencies, risks linked to assets, a distribution matrix and mitigation tasks with owners form a real chain, and asset updates can be fed from Azure. But we found no public information on a documented risk methodology, inherited protection needs across asset relations, or incident workflows carrying statutory reporting clocks; incident handling shows up as configurable workflows rather than a clocked process.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

The evidence shows a step-by-step assistant, central task management and a blanket 'complete NIS2 and DORA coverage' claim, but not one word on asset inventory, risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance or incident clocks — the ISMS core is unevidenced, and that absence is the finding.

DataGuard ISMS

Measures are a first-class object with owners, status tracking, effectiveness assessment, tasks, custom definitions and one measure linkable to several frameworks, plus automatic evidence mapping to requirements. The statement-of-applicability content on the site reads as guidance about the standard's demands rather than an on-demand SoA generated from live control status, and we found no public information on internal audit workflows or findings management.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

Control cross-mapping, custom frameworks and a policy generator plus task management with status views give a control layer with rough ownership, but there is no SoA generation, no control-to-risk linkage and no internal audit or findings workflow anywhere in the evidence.

DataGuard ISMS

Five regimes for its market — DSGVO, ISO 27001 including the 2022 revision, TISAX, NIS2 and the EU AI Act — with a published mapping of NIS2 requirements onto ISO 27001 clauses and controls, and measures reusable across frameworks on one data basis. Additional frameworks are explicitly marked as upcoming, and we found no public information on DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz or SOC 2 coverage.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

10+ frameworks with ISO 27001/TISAX/DSGVO, NIS2 and DORA named, cross-framework mapping, and a visible cadence (NIS2 launched 2023, EU AI Act and ISO 9001 in 2025) — real breadth, though '10+' is a marketing count, not dozens with per-industry control profiles.

DataGuard ISMS

Automatic capture and storage of compliance documentation, real-time dashboards, generated downloadable and shareable reports, and a customer case citing 140-plus evidence artifacts point toward evidence collected continuously rather than assembled before the audit. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs or auditor access roles; the versioning language on the captured pages describes what the standard demands of the customer, not a product feature.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

The only audit evidence is a self-reported '100% success rate' marketing line; the evidence is silent on revision-safe history, evidence packs, auditor access roles and even export formats, so I cannot credit defensible proof production at all.

DataGuard ISMS

This is the right direction: automated Azure asset updates, Jira and Asana connectors set up in under fifteen minutes, CRM consent-data flows, and continuous real-time synchronisation of data flows into a central repository — the platform feeds from the estate instead of a bulk-import drawbridge. But the API surfaces only as a navigation label with no documented surface or parity claims, and we found no public information on directory sync, SSO or SCIM, webhooks, or automated control tests with human review.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

'Über 60 API-Anbindungen' with Jira named and automated notifications is more than a CSV drawbridge, but no directory, CMDB, cloud or endpoint source is identified, no SSO/SCIM, no API documentation, and — the thing that decides for me — zero evidence of continuous control checks or automated evidence collection against the live estate.

DataGuard ISMS

A German GmbH with a Munich commercial register entry, a published EU privacy policy and standard contractual clauses under Article 46 GDPR for recipients outside the EEA — which itself confirms third-country transfers occur. We found no public information on hosting location, data residency, a published data processing agreement or a subprocessor list, ownership is undocumented, and a London office sits in the group.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

secjur GmbH is Hamburg-registered with a German VAT ID and 'Hosted in Germany' is stated as the default, but no DPA, no subprocessor list, no TOMs and no named data centers appear anywhere — the chain that would hold the risk register is undocumented past two marketing lines and an imprint.

DataGuard ISMS

Plan names and feature groupings for Base, Pro and Enterprise are public, but every tier, including Base, is quote-only ('Angebot anfordern') with no figure anywhere on the captured pricing page. The only cost signals are comparative marketing claims — up to fifty percent cheaper than external consultants, no hidden costs — which leave the real invoice incomputable.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

Not one euro figure on any captured page — only 'unlimited consulting at fixed price' and savings percentages of 50-67%; the invoice for any real configuration is a sales conversation, which fits the bottom anchor with a single point for at least stating the billing model.