ISMS.online vs verinice

ISMS.online

The evidence shows a 'Dynamic Risk Register & Treatment' and an 'automated risk assessments' marketing line, but nothing on asset inventory, a documented risk methodology, protection-needs inheritance, or incident workflows with statutory clocks — the only '24 hours' quote is the vendor's own breach-notification promise about itself, not a customer-facing feature.

verinice

This is a documented-methodology product: automatic protection-needs inheritance in the structure analysis, ISO/IEC 27005 among the covered standards, NIS2 incident handling carrying the 24-hour, 72-hour and one-month statutory clocks, and a BCM domain for continuity. We found no public information on risk acceptance with named ownership or executive-level risk reporting, so the chain stops short of what a certifier reads upward.

ISMS.online

Pre-configured control templates with version history, approval workflow, owner assignment and automatic mapping to standards clear the checklist bar, and 'update a risk, a policy or a piece of evidence, and the rest of the platform reflects it instantly' hints at real linkage. But the evidence is completely silent on SoA generation, internal audit workflows, findings management and delegation — content packs, not an operable control fabric.

verinice

Requirements, measures, threats and risks exist as object types with input masks, a realization and audit plan can be produced, and the Basis-, Standard- and Kernabsicherung approaches drive applicability through to real BSI Testat and ISO 27001 certification paths. We found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation from live control status, measure delegation with escalation, or findings management, so the control side reads as operable but manually assembled.

ISMS.online

100+ frameworks claimed consistently across sources, with NIS 2, GDPR, SOC 2, ISO 42001, EU AI Act and NIST named inside one platform pitch plus localized ISO 27001 content — genuine breadth. What I don't get is proof that one control answer maps across regimes on one data basis rather than 100 fresh islands, nor any evidence of update cadence or per-industry profiles.

verinice

Coverage is broad and current for its market: ISO/IEC 27001 through 27005 plus 22301, BSI IT-Grundschutz with BSI Standards 200-1 to 200-4, TISAX, GDPR, and an NIS2 domain that already integrates and marks the deviations of the German implementation law. The NIS2 domain ships in every bundle of the new generation, pointing to one shared data basis rather than fresh islands; we found no public information on SOC 2, DORA or a documented catalog update cadence.

ISMS.online

Policy version history and approval workflow and evidence as a platform object are a start, and 'audit readiness' is the marketing word of the day. Zero evidence of platform-wide revision-safe history, audit-scoped evidence packs, report generators or auditor access roles — the evidence never shows an external auditor being handed anything defensible.

verinice

The tool is presented as certification-capable — ISO 27001 on the basis of IT-Grundschutz or a BSI Testat — with a realization and audit plan, a partner network for certifications and audits, and NIS2 reporting keyed to statutory deadlines. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles or reconstructing the state on a given date, which is what makes proof defensible rather than assembled.

ISMS.online

A Public API and a native ServiceNow connector exist, which is more than a CSV drawbridge — but the only documented integration depth is Google Drive as a file picker that 'never accesses, or performs actions on, the file itself'. No directory import, no CMDB, no cloud/endpoint sources, no webhooks, no SSO/SCIM, and 'automates compliance tasks' reads as reminders and recurrence, not continuous control checks against the live estate.

verinice

The only automation the captured pages show is internal: automatic protection-needs inheritance. We found no public information on a REST API, directory or CMDB import, ticketing or cloud connectors, single sign-on or automated evidence tests, so by everything captured the register is fed by hand through input masks; the open-source code could be inspected, but no page shows the platform wired to a live estate.

ISMS.online

The risk register would sit with a UK-registered entity (Alliantist, England and Wales) with an EU data centre as one of four co-equal customer choices rather than a default. The only published subprocessor list is the controller-role one, saturated with US CLOUD Act reach — Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Atlassian — and the processor chain that actually touches customer ISMS content is undocumented in this sheet.

verinice

A German entity operates the SaaS and an on-premises, self-managed subscription exists on fully open-source code, which gives a genuinely sovereign deployment path, and the subprocessors named — payment and web analytics with anonymised IPs — are website-side rather than content-touching. We found no public information on where verinice.cloud data is hosted, on named data centers, a customer DPA or a subprocessor list for the service itself, and the vendor lists a San Francisco office.

ISMS.online

'IO's pricing is bespoke to you' with no published seat or tier prices — every configuration is a sales conversation, which is the 0 anchor by definition. This describes the market norm rather than condemning it, but the evidence leaves nothing to compute.

verinice

Three bundles carry public annual figures — ISO 27001 Bundle from 5.750 € / year, IT-Grundschutz Bundle from 5.750 € / year, ISO + IT-Grundschutz from 8.530 € / year — with a 60-day free evaluation and self-service portals that separate software from partner consulting. The standalone NIS2 subscription and the additional modules carry no public price and we found no public information on user or entity boundaries, so the real invoice is not computable; the captured pages also give different figures, 30 versus 60 days, for the NIS2 evaluation.