Information Security
6clicks
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by 6clicks Pty Ltd · www.6clicks.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
6clicks at a glance
- Vendor
- 6clicks Pty Ltd
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates 6clicks 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. 6clicks is an AI-powered ISMS platform for regulated and complex enterprises, and the scoring shows no meaningful disagreements between judges. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
6clicks is an AI-powered ISMS platform for regulated and complex enterprises, and the scoring shows no meaningful disagreements between judges. It is strongest on framework coverage at 8 to 9 and integrations and automation at 8 to 9, followed by controls and Statement of Applicability at 7 to 8: a live Statement of Applicability maps evidence automatically across every Annex A control, named connectors span ServiceNow, Jira, CrowdStrike, Qualys, Tenable and the three hyperscalers, and AI maps one audit's results across many regimes. Sovereignty is the weak point at 3 to 4: the contracting entity is Australian with UK and US affiliates, hosting runs on Microsoft Azure, and OpenAI (Azure Hosted) and Fireflies.ai appear in the named sub-processor chain, with four deployment options — local cloud, self-hosting and an air-gapped appliance among them — as the mitigation judges credited. Information security management sits at a uniform 6 and audit readiness at 6 to 7, with no public information on revision-safe change history or auditor access roles. No price figures are published; every fee is set in the Quote.
Speaks for it
- A live Statement of Applicability maps evidence automatically across every Annex A control, with content kept current by an in-house GRC content team
- Framework coverage scored 8 to 9, with NIS2, DORA, SOC 2, PCI DSS, CMMC, ISO 27001 and 42001, NIST CSF and the Australian ISM/IRAP regimes named and one audit's results mapped across frameworks
- Integrations scored 8 to 9 on named connectors for Jira, ServiceNow, CrowdStrike, Qualys, Tenable and all three hyperscalers, plus a developer API with event-based webhooks and agents that collect evidence and monitor drift
- Control, evidence and remediation tasks are assigned to named owners across agencies, subsidiaries and teams with progress tracking
- Four deployment options — hyperscaler cloud, local sovereign cloud, self-hosted and an air-gapped GRC appliance — include AI inference inside the customer environment
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 3 to 4: the contracting entity is 6clicks Trading Pty Ltd with UK and US affiliates, hosting runs on Microsoft Azure, and OpenAI (Azure Hosted) and Fireflies.ai appear in the named sub-processor chain
- We found no public information on a published sub-processor list, named EU data centers, or a European legal entity
- Audit readiness scored 6 to 7, with no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or reconstructing the state on a given date
- Information security management scored 6, with no public information on protection-needs inheritance across asset relations, statutory reporting clocks such as NIS2 24h/72h inside incident workflows, or risk acceptance with named ownership
- The captured pages give different figures for the framework count — '1000+' on one page, 'hundreds' elsewhere — so the named regimes, not the headline number, carry the score
Best for
- You must satisfy many regimes at once — ISO 27001, NIS2, DORA, SOC 2 — and want one control answer mapped across frameworks
- Your ISMS should feed from the live estate — ticketing, vulnerability scanners, cloud and identity sources — rather than manual re-entry
- You run GRC across multiple subsidiaries, agencies or regulated entities and need a hub-and-spoke model with one standard and full data segregation
- You can deploy self-hosted or on an air-gapped appliance and want AI inference running inside your own environment
Avoid if
- Your regulator or customer contract requires EU-resident processing by default under a European legal entity — the default posture shown is an Australian vendor on Microsoft Azure with OpenAI (Azure Hosted) and Fireflies.ai named in the sub-processor chain
- Your external auditor will test revision-safe change history and the state of controls on a given date — the pages show live dashboards and one-click reports, and we found no public information on those capabilities
- Your compliance scope is German-market — the named frameworks run to NIS2, DORA, CMMC and the Australian sets, and we found no public information on TISAX or BSI IT-Grundschutz content
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Asset & risk management depth | 3 of 5 |
| Controls, SoA & measures | 4 of 5 |
| Framework & standard coverage | 4.5 of 5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 3 of 5 |
| Integrations & automation | 4.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
Asset & risk management depth
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The ISMS core: asset inventory, risk methodology (identification, assessment, treatment), protection-needs inheritance, incident handling with statutory clocks.
0 — No ISMS substance; "information security" is a chapter in the marketing site.
3 — A flat risk list and an asset spreadsheet import; no treatment tracking, no inheritance, incidents live in the ticket system.
5 — Asset and risk management with configurable matrices and treatment tracking; basic incident handling; inheritance and aggregation need manual work.
8 — A real risk backbone: documented methodology (ISO 27005 or equivalent), inherited protection needs across asset relations, incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks (NIS2 24h/72h), risk acceptance with ownership.
10 — Risk management a certifier works inside: complete asset-risk-treatment chain with inheritance, continuity planning, incident reporting with authority export, and risk reporting the executive level actually reads.
The CISO
A risk register natively tied to Annex A controls and treatments, a configurable risk lifecycle with your own or their best-practice methodology, assets carrying CIA classifications, and incident workflows with automated escalation — that is more than a flat list. But we found no public information on protection needs inherited across asset relations, statutory reporting clocks built into the incident workflow, or risk acceptance bound to a named owner, so I cannot call it a full risk backbone that answers who accepted what. 5 6 8
The GRC Consultant
Assets carry CIA classifications, risks run through a configurable lifecycle with treatments natively linked to Annex A controls, and incidents are logged, triaged and escalated through workflows — a live register rather than a spreadsheet. What keeps it below a certifier-grade backbone: I found no public information on protection-needs inheritance across asset relations, risk acceptance with named ownership, or incident reporting clocks matching NIS2's 24h/72h duties. 5 6 8
The Drafted IT Officer
The chain from catalogued assets with CIA classifications through structured assessments to treatment plans natively linked to Annex A controls is on the product pages, and incidents get automated workflows with escalation — more than the spreadsheet I would have built. But I found no public information on inherited protection needs across asset relations, a documented risk methodology, or statutory reporting clocks like the NIS2 24/72-hour deadlines, so it stays below the certifier-grade band. 5 6 8
The Lead Auditor
Assets carry CIA classifications, the risk lifecycle, fields and workflows are configurable per business unit, and treatments sit in a register natively linked to Annex A controls with AI drafting risks from incidents and vendor findings. Incident workflows log, triage and escalate, but I found no public information on protection-needs inheritance across asset relations, a named methodology such as ISO 27005, or statutory reporting clocks — the 72-hour figure in the terms is a contractual breach notice between the parties, not an authority clock. That places this solidly above the mid anchor and well short of the backbone a certifier works inside. 5 6 8 2
The Evidence Integrator
The risk side is fed rather than typed: assets carry CIA classifications, structured assessments and treatment plans link natively to Annex A controls, incident and nonconformity workflows escalate automatically, and AI drafts risk updates from control failures, vendor assessments and incidents. We found no public information on inherited protection needs across asset relations, statutory NIS2 reporting clocks inside the incident workflows, or risk acceptance with named ownership, so this stops short of the full risk backbone. 5 6 8
The Skeptic
Assets are catalogued with CIA classifications, treatment plans link to controls and obligations, incidents are logged with automated escalation, and the risk lifecycle is configurable — the working core is all evidenced. We found no public information on inherited protection needs across asset relations, statutory reporting clocks like NIS2 24h/72h inside incident workflows, a named methodology such as ISO 27005, or risk acceptance with named ownership. That lands this between solid asset-and-risk operability and the certifier-grade backbone the top of the scale describes. 5 6 8
Controls, SoA & measures
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Control catalogs, statement of applicability, measure tracking and internal audit — whether the control side of the ISMS is operable or a checklist.
0 — A static control checklist; applicability, implementation status and evidence are the consultant's spreadsheet.
3 — Control catalogs with status fields, but no SoA generation, no measure ownership, no link between controls and risks.
5 — Controls linked to risks and measures with owners and due dates; SoA producible with manual assembly; internal audit supported by checklists.
8 — SoA on demand from live control status, measure tracking with delegation and escalation, internal audit workflows with findings management, controls carrying their own evidence.
10 — The control fabric as a living system: catalog updates versioned, SoA always current, audit programs with recurring schedules, and every control answerable with linked evidence at any moment.
The CISO
A live Statement of Applicability with automated evidence mapping across every Annex A control, control and remediation tasks assigned to owners with progress tracking, internal and supplier audits with results mapped across frameworks, and Annex A content kept current by a content team — the control side is operable rather than a checklist. We found no public information on recurring audit program schedules or versioned catalog updates, which is what would separate this from the top of the scale. 5 8
The GRC Consultant
A live Statement of Applicability with automated evidence mapping across every Annex A control, risks and treatments in the same register, task ownership with progress tracking across subsidiaries and agencies, and Annex A and SoA content kept current by an in-house GRC content team — the control side is operable, not a checklist. I found no public information on versioned catalog updates, delegation on measures, or recurring internal audit schedules, so I hold it one step below a fully living system. 5 8 9
The Drafted IT Officer
A live Statement of Applicability with automated evidence mapping across every Annex A control, a pre-configured ISO/IEC 27001:2022 starting point, and task assignment to named owners with progress tracking is exactly the plain-language operation an accidental security officer needs. I found no public information on delegation and escalation for measures or findings management inside internal audit workflows, which keeps it out of the top band. 5 8
The Lead Auditor
The captured ISO 27001 pages show a live Statement of Applicability with automated evidence mapping across every Annex A control, content kept current by an in-house team, and task assignment to owners with progress tracking across entities — the SoA is generated from live control status, not assembled by hand. Internal and supplier audits are supported with AI mapping results across frameworks. I found no public information on findings management for internal audits, escalation on overdue measures, or versioned control-catalog updates, which is what separates a very good control module from the living fabric. 8 5
The Evidence Integrator
A live Statement of Applicability with automated evidence mapping across every Annex A control, control and remediation tasks assigned to owners across agencies and subsidiaries with progress tracking, and nonconformity workflows with escalation make the control side operable rather than a consultant's checklist. We found no public information on versioned catalog updates or recurring audit program schedules, which is what separates a strong showing from a living control fabric. 8 5
The Skeptic
A live Statement of Applicability with automated evidence mapping across every Annex A control, control and remediation tasks assigned to owners with progress tracking, and Annex A content kept current by an in-house GRC team make the control side operable rather than a checklist. Internal and supplier audits are shown with Hailey mapping one audit across frameworks, and nonconformities run through workflows with escalation. We found no public information on versioned catalog updates or recurring audit-program schedules, which is where the living-system story would have to go next. 5 8
Framework & standard coverage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which regimes the product actually operationalizes — ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX/VDA ISA, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz, SOC 2 — and whether one control maps across them or each framework is a fresh island.
0 — One framework, hard-coded; anything else is "on the roadmap".
3 — Two or three frameworks as separate checklists; the same control is answered once per framework.
5 — The major regimes for its market with partial cross-mapping; newer regimes (NIS2, DORA) present as content packs of varying depth.
8 — Broad current coverage including NIS2/TISAX/DORA where relevant, one-control-many-frameworks mapping, and visible maintenance as regimes evolve.
10 — Framework coverage as a living product: dozens of regimes, genuine multi-compliance mapping on one data basis, per-industry profiles, and documented update cadence when the standard moves.
The CISO
Over a thousand frameworks including NIS2, DORA, CMMC, PCI DSS, SOC 2, ISO 27001 and 42001, NIST CSF and the Australian regimes, with AI mapping results across frameworks so one audit supports many — one control feeding many regimes is real, and content is pre-configured per region and sector. We found no public information on TISAX or BSI IT-Grundschutz content, which matters for a company with German exposure. 1 4 5 7 8
The GRC Consultant
Over a thousand frameworks with NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, SOC 2, PCI DSS, CMMC, NIST CSF and the Australian ISM/IRAP/Essential Eight family named, pre-configured per region and sector, and audit results mapped across frameworks so one control answer serves many regimes — the one-control-many-frameworks model I demand. The remaining distance to the top is a documented update cadence when a standard moves; I found no public information on that. 4 5 7 8
The Drafted IT Officer
A thousand-plus frameworks with ISO 27001, NIS2, DORA, SOC 2, PCI DSS, NIST CSF and more named, plus Hailey mapping results across frameworks so one audit supports many — one answer, many regimes, which is the whole game for a one-person security function. Pre-configured 2022-version ISO 27001 and content kept current by their GRC team show maintenance; I found no public information on TISAX or BSI IT-Grundschutz packs or a documented update cadence, so it stops just short of the full mark. 1 4 5 7 8
The Lead Auditor
The frameworks page claims access to over a thousand regimes, with NIS2, DORA, CMMC, SOC 2, PCI DSS, ISO 42001, NIST CSF and the Australian ISM/IRAP sets named, pre-configured per region and sector, plus a pre-configured ISO 27001:2022 and cross-framework mapping where one audit supports many. That is coverage as a product, not checklists per regime. The only gap against the top anchor is a documented update cadence when a standard moves — the content team 'keeping current' is a claim, not a published schedule. 7 5 8 1
The Evidence Integrator
More than a thousand frameworks are claimed, with named pages for ISO 27001, NIS2, DORA, SOC 2, PCI DSS, NIST CSF, IRAP, CMMC, Essential Eight and UK Cyber Essentials, and the crosswalk claim — one audit mapped across frameworks on a single data basis — is exactly the right shape. Content is stated as kept current by the vendor's own content team and pre-configured per region and sector, but we found no public information on a documented update cadence when a standard moves, nor on TISAX or BSI IT-Grundschutz. 7 5 8 4
The Skeptic
NIS2, DORA, SOC 2, PCI DSS, CMMC, ISO 27001 and 42001, NIST CSF, Essential Eight, ISM/IRAP, UK Cyber Essentials and DISP are each named with their own positioning, and cross-framework mapping is evidenced twice over — Hailey mapping audit results across frameworks and ISO 27001 aligned with GDPR. The captured pages give different figures for the count — '1000+ frameworks' on one page, 'hundreds' elsewhere — so I credit the named regimes, not the headline number. We found no public information on a documented update cadence when a standard moves, beyond content being 'kept current'. 1 4 5 7 8
Audit readiness & evidence
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the system produces defensible proof: revision-safe history, evidence collection, reports for auditors, authorities and management.
0 — Exports are screenshots; history is overwritten in place.
3 — PDF reports exist but evidence is attached ad hoc and changes leave no reliable trail.
5 — Versioned records, standard report generators, evidence attachments per control; assembling a full audit file still takes days.
8 — Revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, management reports current at a click, auditor access roles.
10 — Audit readiness as a standing state: continuous evidence status per framework and scope, exportable proof packs an external auditor accepts as-is, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X".
The CISO
Continuous compliance posture updates, an audit-readiness dashboard, evidence pulled automatically from CSPM, scanners, CMDB and identity providers, and board-ready reporting are well evidenced. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or the ability to reconstruct the state on a given date — the difference between dashboards and a defensible audit file an external auditor accepts. 1 8 9
The GRC Consultant
Compliance posture updates continuously behind an audit-readiness dashboard, control testing and evidence pull from CSPM, scanners, CMDB and ticketing, and board-ready reports generate at a click — evidence looks like a standing state rather than a scramble. But I found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or a defensible answer to showing the state on a given date, which is what an external auditor actually tests. 1 6 8 9
The Drafted IT Officer
Continuous compliance posture, an audit readiness dashboard, automated reports described as board- and auditor-ready, and evidence pulled from scanners, CMDB, ticketing and identity providers with AI validation are strong claims. But I found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, audit-scoped evidence packs, or a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X" — the exact things my external auditor will ask for. 1 6 8 9
The Lead Auditor
Continuous evidence collection with AI validation, per-control evidence mapping, automated control testing, and operational, executive and board reports 'at a click' are all evidenced — this is past the stage where assembling an audit file takes days. But revision-safe change history, the first thing I look for, appears nowhere in the captured pages, nor do auditor access roles or a defensible reconstruction of the state on a given date. Without those I cannot call audit readiness a standing state. 1 8 6 9
The Evidence Integrator
Audit readiness is positioned as a standing dashboard rather than a project — automated control testing, evidence pulled from the live estate and mapped to controls and frameworks, a live Statement of Applicability, and board- and auditor-ready reports at a click. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, a defensible answer to the state on a given date, or dedicated auditor access roles, which caps it below the top band. 8 9 1 6
The Skeptic
Automated control testing, continuous evidence collection, live dashboards and board-ready reports at a click are all evidenced, with manual uploads receiving the same AI validation and mapping. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or reproducing the state on a given date — and the strongest readiness claim on the pages, 'your next audit is a dashboard, not a project', travels without any of that. One Hailey AI test-results mapping on the integrations page is itself labelled coming soon. 1 6 8 9
Integrations & automation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the platform feeds from the real IT estate — directory import, CMDB, ticketing, scanners, API — and automates evidence collection instead of re-typing it.
0 — A closed island: manual entry in, PDF out, no API.
3 — CSV/Excel import and export; no live connections, no API worth the name.
5 — Directory import (AD/Entra), a documented REST API for core objects, a handful of native connectors (ticketing, CMDB or SSO); automation is reminders and recurrence.
8 — Real connector set (Jira/ServiceNow-class ticketing, CMDB, cloud and endpoint sources), webhooks, SSO/SCIM, automated evidence tests with human review.
10 — The platform behaves like infrastructure: API parity for the data model, event streams, continuous control monitoring against the live estate, and automation that measurably removes the recurring toil rather than renaming it.
The CISO
A developer API with event-based webhooks, named connectors across Jira, ServiceNow, CrowdStrike, Qualys, Tenable and the three hyperscalers, automated evidence collection validated and mapped by AI, agents that monitor drift and trigger remediation, and build-your-own recipes on Workato or n8n — this feeds from the real estate instead of re-typing it, and continuous control monitoring against the live estate is defined in their own terms. We found no public information on SSO or SCIM provisioning or an explicit human review step on automated evidence tests, which keeps it just short of the top. 2 9
The GRC Consultant
ServiceNow- and Jira-class ticketing, CrowdStrike, Qualys and Tenable, cloud and identity sources, thousands of pre-built integrations, a developer API with event-based webhooks, build-your-own connectors on Workato, n8n or self-hosted Node.js, agents that collect evidence continuously, monitor drift and trigger remediation, plus an air-gapped path for OT estates — this feeds the ISMS from the live estate. I found no public information on full API parity for the data model or measured reduction of recurring toil. 2 4 9
The Drafted IT Officer
Named native connectors include Jira, ServiceNow, CrowdStrike, Qualys, Tenable, AWS, Azure and GCP, with a developer API, event-based webhooks, pre-built recipes for Entra and Okta, and agents that collect evidence continuously and monitor drift — the platform feeds from the real estate instead of me re-typing it, and the guided recipe builder is the part I could actually use. I found no public information on SSO/SCIM provisioning. 2 8 9
The Lead Auditor
A Developer API defined in the terms, event-based webhooks, named ticketing, scanner and cloud connectors (Jira, ServiceNow, Qualys, Tenable, CrowdStrike, AWS, Azure, GCP), directory recipes for Entra and Okta, thousands of pre-built integrations, and agents doing continuous evidence collection and drift monitoring put this at the real-connector tier against the live estate. Build-your-own connector paths via Workato, n8n and self-hosted Node.js are also documented. I found no public information on SSO/SCIM provisioning or API parity for the full data model. 9 2
The Evidence Integrator
The pages here describe infrastructure, not a CSV drawbridge: Jira, ServiceNow, CrowdStrike, Qualys and Tenable are named connectors, evidence is pulled automatically from CSPM, vulnerability scanners, CMDB, ticketing and identity providers, a Developer API with event-based webhooks exists, and agents collect evidence continuously, monitor drift and trigger remediation — with a documented route to build connectors on Workato, n8n or self-hosted Node.js. Continuous Control Monitoring against the live estate is even defined in the contractual terms. We found no public information on SSO or SCIM provisioning or on API parity with the full data model, so it stops just short of the top mark. 9 2 1
The Skeptic
Named connectors for ServiceNow, Jira, CrowdStrike, Qualys, Tenable and all three hyperscalers, event-based webhooks, a Developer API defined in the contract, and automated evidence pulls from CSPM, scanners, CMDB, ticketing and identity providers add up to a genuinely real connector set, with continuous control monitoring defined in the terms themselves. Much of the connector long tail rides third-party workflow platforms — Workato, n8n, self-hosted Node.js recipes — rather than native integrations, and one Hailey AI push feature is sold as coming soon. We found no public information on API parity for the full data model. 2 9
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the security posture of the whole company actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. The risk register is itself a target.
0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for the system holding your risk register.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad or undocumented.
5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.
8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.
10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.
The CISO
The vendor is an Australian company with UK and US subsidiaries, hosting runs on Microsoft Azure with OpenAI (Azure Hosted) and Fireflies.ai named as sub-processors, and international transfers rest on SCCs — so the default chain sits well outside Europe. Genuine mitigation exists: an in-country local cloud, self-hosted and air-gapped appliance deployments let the risk register live inside my environment, and the DPA is public; we found no public information on a complete published sub-processor list or named EU data centers. 2 3 4
The GRC Consultant
The contracting entity is Australian with UK and US subsidiaries, hosting runs on Microsoft Azure, and named sub-processors include OpenAI (Azure Hosted) and Fireflies.ai — broad US CLOUD Act reach over the system holding your risk register. A downloadable DPA, regional data hosting per jurisdiction terms, in-country sovereign cloud, self-hosting and an air-gapped appliance with AI inference in the customer environment lift it above the floor; I found no public information on a European entity, EU hosting as a default, or a published sub-processor list. 2 3 4
The Drafted IT Officer
The vendor is an Australian company with UK and US subsidiaries, default hosting sits on Microsoft Azure with OpenAI (Azure-hosted) and Fireflies.ai named in passing as sub-processors, and I found no published subprocessor list or named EU data centers. The saving grace is the deployment portfolio — an in-country sovereign cloud option, self-hosting, and an air-gapped appliance with AI inference inside my own environment — but the default SaaS posture does not live under European law. 2 3 4
The Lead Auditor
The contracting entity is Australian with affiliates in the United Kingdom and United States, the privacy policy names Microsoft Azure and Azure Storage as hosting with OpenAI (Azure hosted) among subprocessors, and transfers rely on SCCs and the UK Addendum — so the default posture sits inside non-European and US jurisdictional reach, though a DPA is downloadable and regional hosting is set per jurisdiction-specific terms. Four deployment models including an in-country sovereign cloud, self-hosted and an air-gapped appliance give a buyer a real path to jurisdictional separation beyond an EU region on request. I found no public information on ownership or a dedicated published subprocessor list. 3 4 2
The Evidence Integrator
The legal entity is Australian with affiliates in the UK and US, the sub-processor chain named in the privacy policy includes Microsoft Azure, OpenAI (Azure Hosted) and Fireflies.ai, and we found no public information on a published sub-processor list — real US jurisdictional reach around the system holding your risk register. A downloadable DPA, SCC-based EEA transfers, and genuine escape hatches in the in-country local cloud, self-hosted and air-gapped appliance options keep this off the floor, but EU hosting appears as a jurisdiction-specific choice rather than a default. 3 4 2
The Skeptic
The DPA is downloadable and hosting follows jurisdiction-specific regional centers, but the contracting entity is an Australian company with UK and US subsidiaries, hosting runs on Microsoft Azure, and the named subprocessors include US-reach providers such as OpenAI (Azure hosted) and Fireflies.ai. We found no public information on a subprocessor list, an EU legal entity, or named EU data centers. Self-hosted and air-gapped appliance options are real mitigation, but they are a customer's construction project rather than the default posture under which the risk register lives. 2 3 4
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per module, per entity, per year, with consulting unbundled — from public pages alone. Unpublished pricing is the B2B norm in this market, so this criterion describes rather than condemns; the benches weight it accordingly.
0 — No public prices at all; every configuration is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but module add-ons, scale steps or bundled consulting make the real total incomputable.
5 — Most editions carry real numbers with billing period stated and software separated from services; at least one commonly needed module or scale step is unpriced.
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly with entity/user boundaries and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: modules, scale steps, service packages and renewal rules public, so the invoice for a 100-employee company and a certification project is a two-minute exercise.
The CISO
No public price figure appears anywhere; every fee is set in the Quote, payable 12 months in advance on a default three-year term with taxes exclusive and transition assistance beyond three months charged at unpublished hourly rates. The only public pricing information is structural — all modules, unlimited users, no per-seat pricing, onboarding and support included — which narrows the invoice shape but still cannot compute a total. 1 2
The GRC Consultant
We found no public prices at all — fees live in a Quote, payable 12 months in advance, defaulting to a three-year initial term with taxes excluded and a 60-day non-renewal notice. The packaging shape is public (all modules, all features, unlimited users, onboarding and support included, no per-seat pricing), but no invoice for any company size is computable from the public pages. 1 2
The Drafted IT Officer
The model is unusually simple on paper — all modules, unlimited users, onboarding and support included, no per-seat pricing, frameworks included rather than priced per framework — but I found no public price figures at all, so the real invoice is still a sales conversation. The contract terms are at least explicit: fees payable twelve months in advance, a default three-year initial term, and automatic renewal unless I give 60 days' written notice. 1 2 5
The Lead Auditor
No price figures appear anywhere in the captured pages — fees live in the Quote, payable twelve months in advance on a default three-year initial term, taxes exclusive, with automatic renewal unless notice is given sixty days before expiry. The commercial shape is unusually well described publicly: all modules, unlimited users, onboarding and support included, no per-seat pricing. But with every amount set in the Quote, a buyer cannot compute any invoice from public pages alone. 2 1
The Evidence Integrator
The pricing model is unusually legible — all modules and unlimited users, onboarding and support included, no per-seat pricing, content included rather than priced per framework, fees payable twelve months in advance and fixed for the initial term — but we found no public price figures on any captured page; every actual total arrives in a Quote. A buyer can know the shape of the invoice but not its amount. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
We found no public information on any price figure — no currency amount, entry tier or scale step appears in the captured pages, so the invoice is always a sales conversation. What is published is the model's shape: 'All modules, all features, unlimited users. Onboarding and support included. No per-seat pricing.', with fees payable 12 months in advance, a default 3-year initial term and fees fixed only for that term. A pricing structure without numbers cannot be computed into a real invoice. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about 6clicks
Is 6clicks European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where 6clicks is based.
Where does 6clicks store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does 6clicks have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to 6clicks?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates preeco | informationssicherheit (3.5/5), Secfix (3.5/5) and Akarion GRC Cloud (ISMS) (3/5) highest among the other 26 Information Security products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is preeco | informationssicherheit (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: 6clicks alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 6 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 compliance fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →