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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Hunts "100% audit success" claims, framework logos that link nowhere, "coming soon" integrations sold as shipped, consulting bundled as software, and customer counts that disagree between pages. Exists to keep the rest of the bench honest.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic 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 Skeptic
Asset & risk management depth 3 of 5 3 of 5
Controls, SoA & measures 4 of 5 4 of 5
Framework & standard coverage 4.5 of 5 4 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 1.5 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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 →