whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Information Security

6clicks

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

6clicks: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai 6clicks: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

6clicks alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Drafted IT Officer

Weighted verdict

SME IT admin who became the information security officer by an email from management. Optimizes for guided setup, sane defaults, plain-language controls and a tool that runs alongside the day job. Rejects platforms that assume a security team and a consultant on retainer.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Drafted IT Officer

Panel median The Drafted IT Officer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Drafted IT Officer
Asset & risk management depth 3 of 5 3 of 5
Controls, SoA & measures 4 of 5 3.5 of 5
Framework & standard coverage 4.5 of 5 4.5 of 5
Audit readiness & evidence 3 of 5 3 of 5
Integrations & automation 4.5 of 5 4 of 5
European sovereignty 2 of 5 2 of 5

Asset & risk management depth

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Controls, SoA & measures

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Framework & standard coverage

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Audit readiness & evidence

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".

Report an error

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

Report an error

Integrations & automation

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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.

Do you know more about 6clicks? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (9)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.6clicks.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →