DataGuard ISMS vs SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

DataGuard ISMS

The asset side is real: a structured register with bulk import, owners, tags and dependency visualization, risks linked to assets and driven through mitigation tasks with a distribution matrix and real-time dashboards. We found no public information on a documented risk methodology, on inherited protection needs across those asset relations, or on incident workflows carrying statutory reporting clocks; incident handling surfaces as a configurable workflow and an entry in the privacy module list.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

The ISMS product page is three trust badges (ISO 27001 certified, Hosted in Germany, DSGVO Standards) and a phone number — nowhere does the evidence evidence an asset inventory, a risk register, treatment tracking, or a single incident workflow, let alone NIS2 24h/72h clocks. What exists is a step-by-step assistant, a task list with status, and a policy generator: an ISMS-shaped to-do app, not a risk backbone.

DataGuard ISMS

Measures carry owners, implementation status, effectiveness checks, reuse across frameworks and automatic evidence assignment — more than a checklist. But the statement-of-applicability content on the site is educational guide text about versioning duties, we found no public information on generating a SoA from live control status or on internal audit workflows with findings management, and part of the expert measure library is marked available only after release.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

Status-tracked central task management plus a step-by-step ISO 27001 assistant suggest catalog content with status fields, but SoA generation, measure ownership and due dates, internal audit workflows, and any control-to-risk linkage are absent from every captured page. 'Control-Cross-Mapping' is asserted as a feature line, never demonstrated as an operable control fabric.

DataGuard ISMS

Five regimes for its German market — DSGVO, ISO 27001, TISAX, NIS2 and the EU AI Act — with genuine reuse of one measure across frameworks and a published NIS2-to-ISO 27001 mapping table. We found no public information on DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz or SOC 2, no documented update cadence when a standard moves, and the measures page itself says further frameworks are coming soon.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

Breadth and upkeep are genuinely evidenced: TISAX, an early NIS2 framework (Q2 2023), DORA, EU AI Act and ISO 9001 launched 2025, with cross-framework mapping claimed. But '10+ standards' pads the count with DSGVO and AML regimes, and 'vollständige Abdeckung aller NIS2- und DORA-Anforderungen' is an absolute claim I discount without depth evidence — content packs, not demonstrated one-control-many-frameworks mapping.

DataGuard ISMS

Automated reports, real-time gap dashboards, an audit-ready inventory and automatically assigned evidence are the standard toolkit, and one customer case cites 140-plus evidence artifacts for a six-month TISAX build. The repeat claim that every customer passed external ISO 27001 and TISAX audits on the first attempt is stated without a denominator, and, separately, the reporting pages note their figures rest on internal estimates. Beyond this, we found no public information on revision-safe change history, on-demand audit-scoped evidence packs, or auditor access roles.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

The only audit-adjacent content on any page is '100% Erfolgsrate bei ISO 27001 Audits unserer Kunden' — a poster number with no denominator, methodology, or selection criteria, exactly the claim I exist to discount. Revision-safe history, evidence collection, auditor reports, date-X state queries: the evidence is completely silent, which anchors this near zero.

DataGuard ISMS

Named connectors are real: automated Azure asset updates, CRM consent data, Asana and Jira in under fifteen minutes, preconfigured integrations and continuous sync — past the CSV stage. The API, though, appears only as a navigation label with no documented endpoints or data model shown, automation is sold as up to 40% of all tasks, and we found no public information on directory import, CMDB, ticketing beyond project tools, SSO/SCIM or webhooks.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

'Über 60 API-Anbindungen' with exactly one connector named — Jira — is a count, not a catalog; no API documentation, SSO/SCIM, directory or CMDB import, scanners, or automated evidence tests are evidenced anywhere. The only demonstrated automation is automated e-mail notifications, i.e., reminders.

DataGuard ISMS

The vendor is a German GmbH with a Munich register entry, a named data protection officer, and a privacy policy that leans on standard contractual clauses for third-country recipients — a clause you only need if such recipients exist. We found no public information on where the platform holding the risk register is hosted, on ownership, or on any subprocessor list, so that exposure remains unquantified.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

The imprint is affirmative on entity — secjur GmbH, Hamburg register court, German VAT — and 'Hosted in Germany' beats an on-request EU region, with only European investors (Visionaries Club Berlin, Alea Portugal) evidenced. But the hosting claim is a badge, not a named data center, and there is no DPA, no TOMs, and no subprocessor list on any captured page — undocumented subprocessor exposure for the system holding your risk register.

DataGuard ISMS

Every plan — Base, Pro and Enterprise — offers nothing but 'Angebot anfordern', so no public price exists anywhere to compute an invoice from. The Pro tier blends an external information security officer, data migration and expert support into the software quote rather than separating services from the platform, and a 'keine versteckten Kosten' line on the demo section does the work a number would.

SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)

Not one price with a currency sign appears on any page; the only pricing statements are 'unlimitierte Beratung zum Festpreis' — consulting bundled and unpriced — and savings percentages that disagree between pages (50% vs 'bis zu 67%') against a baseline that is never stated. Every invoice is a sales conversation.