Information Security
AuditBoard
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by AuditBoard, Inc. · auditboard.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
AuditBoard — legal entity Optro, Inc., formerly AuditBoard — is a GRC platform sold as four solutions (Audit, Risk, Infosec, Compliance) across ten named modules, from Controls Management and Autonomous Testing to OpsAudit, CrossComply and RiskOversight. The bench scores it highest on integrations and automation, at 3 to 4: an Integrations & APIs offering and Autonomous Testing read as more than a closed island, though no connector or API documentation is shown. Audit readiness follows at 2 to 4, carried by OpsAudit and Reporting & Dashboards. It is weakest on framework coverage at 1 to 3 — the captured pages name no regime, not ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA or SOC 2 — with one judge at 3 crediting a frameworks product while the others discount the unnamed regimes. Sovereignty sits at 1 with a single 0: the legal entity is Optro, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware, and we found no public information on hosting location, a DPA, or a subprocessor list, only a Trust Center link. No price figures appear; the only buying path shown is Schedule a Demo.
Speaks for it
- An Integrations & APIs offering plus an Autonomous Testing module earns the bench's top cluster, 3 to 4 on integrations and automation
- OpsAudit is sold as a risk-based internal audit product alongside Reporting & Dashboards and Analytics, taking audit readiness to 4 at its highest
- Ten named modules — Controls Management, OpsAudit, CrossComply, RiskOversight, TPRM, BCM among them — span audit, risk, infosec and compliance
- Named a Leader in the Forrester Wave: Governance, Risk, And Compliance Platforms, Q2 2026 and in the 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for GRC Tools
- States customer scale of use by over 50% of the Fortune 500
Held against it
- Framework coverage scores 1 to 3 because the captured pages name no regime — not ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA or SOC 2
- We found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation, measure ownership with due dates, or findings management
- We found no public information on a risk methodology, asset inventory, or incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks
- The legal entity is Optro, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware, with no sovereignty attributes on record, and we found no public information on hosting location, a DPA, or a subprocessor list — only a Trust Center link
- No connector is named and no API documentation is shown, so automation depth rests on the vendor's own headline claims
Best for
- You lead an internal audit function and want a dedicated risk-based audit product (OpsAudit) with reporting and analytics rather than ad-hoc exports
- You are consolidating audit, risk, infosec and compliance under one vendor and value a broad module catalog with an API surface
- Your procurement weighs analyst placements, and Leader status in the Forrester Wave GRC Platforms Q2 2026 and the 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for GRC Tools carries weight
Avoid if
- You must see named frameworks (ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, SOC 2) or cross-framework mapping documented before signing — the captured pages name none
- You cannot hand a risk register to a US legal entity (Optro, Inc., 103 Foulk Road, Suite 202, Wilmington DE 19803) without a published DPA, hosting statement, or subprocessor list — we found no public information on these
- You need self-serve pricing or a trial before any sales contact — the only buying path shown is Schedule a Demo
The scores
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
RiskOversight, BCM and Cyber Risk Management exist as module names over marketing copy; I found no public information on a documented risk methodology, asset inventory with protection-needs inheritance, incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks, or risk acceptance with a named owner. 1
The GRC Consultant
Risk management, cyber risk, and business continuity all appear as named modules, which lifts this above a marketing chapter, but we found no public information on asset inventory, risk methodology, inherited protection needs, or incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks. The ISMS core is invisible in the captured material. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The homepage names risk modules — RiskOversight, Cyber Risk Management, BCM — wrapped in copy like "put all risks under one roof", but I found no public information on a risk methodology, an asset inventory, protection-needs inheritance, or incident handling with statutory reporting clocks. As the person who would run this beside a day job, a module list gives me nothing to start from. 1
The Lead Auditor
Risk, cyber risk, business continuity and third-party risk appear as named modules under an Infosec solution, so the subject matter is more than a marketing chapter — but we found no public information on risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance across asset relations, or incident handling with statutory reporting clocks. 1
The Evidence Integrator
Risk shows up as named modules — RiskOversight, Cyber Risk Management, business continuity, third-party risk — so a risk register plainly lives in the product, but the captured pages say nothing about methodology, treatment tracking, inherited protection needs, or incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks. I can only credit that the area exists; the depth that would earn more is entirely unevidenced. 1
The Skeptic
The Infosec pitch is a marketing line — "Get a clear view of your threat landscape" — plus module names like RiskOversight, Cyber Risk Management, BCM and TPRM. We found no public information on a documented risk methodology, asset inventory, protection-needs inheritance, or incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks. Names on a homepage are a catalog, not a risk backbone. 1
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 Controls Management module, a Frameworks & Controls page and Autonomous Testing are the visible substance; we found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation from live status, measure ownership with delegation or escalation, or internal audit findings workflows. 1
The GRC Consultant
Controls Management and Autonomous Testing are named modules and a Frameworks & Controls page exists, so a control catalog with testing is clearly product surface, but we found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation, measure ownership with due dates, or findings management. On this evidence the control side reads as a catalog with testing, not a living control fabric. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
There is a Controls Management module, a Frameworks & Controls section, and something called Autonomous Testing, but I found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation, control ownership with due dates, or controls linked to risks and evidence. From what I can see this could still be the consultant's spreadsheet with a nicer logo. 1
The Lead Auditor
Controls Management, CrossComply and the internal-audit module OpsAudit are named as modules, indicating a control catalog and an audit function exist in some form. We found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation from live control status, measure ownership with delegation, or controls carrying their own linked evidence. 1
The Evidence Integrator
Controls Management and Autonomous Testing are named modules, with an audit solution sitting alongside them, which reads as more than a static checklist — but I found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation, measure ownership, findings management, or controls linked to risks. The control side is a product area on paper; whether it is operable is not shown. 1
The Skeptic
Controls Management, Frameworks & Controls and CrossComply appear as labels, with Autonomous Testing sold as a module. We found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation, measure ownership and due dates, or internal audit workflows with findings management. A control story that never shows its SoA is the checklist-shaped pitch I discount. 1
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
Not one regime — not ISO 27001, not NIS2, not TISAX, not SOC 2 — is named anywhere in the captured pages, and the CrossComply module name is not evidence of one-control-many-frameworks mapping; I found no public information on which frameworks are actually covered. 1
The GRC Consultant
A module named CrossComply and a Frameworks & Controls page suggest multi-framework intent, yet the captured pages name no specific regime — we found no public information confirming ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, or SOC 2 content — so I can credit only the existence of a frameworks product, with none of the cross-mapping mechanics I need to run twelve clients on one catalog. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The captured page shows a Frameworks & Controls heading and a CrossComply module, yet I found no public information naming even one regime — ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA and SOC 2 are absent from everything captured — so both the actual coverage and any cross-framework mapping are unverifiable to me. 1
The Lead Auditor
The captured pages show a Frameworks & Controls section and a CrossComply module but name no individual framework — no ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz or SOC 2 appears in the text. With no regime named and no mapping evidence, coverage cannot be assessed beyond these labels. 1
The Evidence Integrator
A CrossComply module and a Frameworks & Controls link gesture at multiple regimes, yet not a single framework is named anywhere in the capture — no ISO 27001, no NIS2, no SOC 2, no TISAX, nothing. I found no public information on which regimes are operationalized or whether one control maps across them. 1
The Skeptic
The site advertises Frameworks & Controls and a CrossComply module, yet not a single regime — ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, SOC 2 — is named on the captured page. We found no public information on which frameworks are supported, whether one control maps across them, or any update cadence. A cross-compliance claim with the frameworks left unnamed is a logo wall with the logos omitted. 1
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
OpsAudit, Analytics and Reporting & Dashboards say audit is a product area, but I found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, management reports on demand, or auditor access roles — and analyst-leader placements are not audit evidence. 1
The GRC Consultant
OpsAudit is sold as a risk-based internal audit product with Reporting & Dashboards and Analytics as headline pages, which sits above ad-hoc PDF exports, but we found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or answering 'show me the state on date X'. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
An OpsAudit module and Reporting & Dashboards tell me audits and reports exist somewhere in the product, but I found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence collected per control, auditor access roles, or exportable proof packs. I cannot assume an audit file that builds itself. 1
The Lead Auditor
Reporting & Dashboards, Analytics and the OpsAudit module indicate that report generation exists. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or anything that would answer 'show me the state on date X' — nothing in the capture speaks to the trail. 1
The Evidence Integrator
Reporting & Dashboards and Analytics are offered, and the Forrester Wave and Gartner Leader placements speak to reporting maturity in the market's eyes, but the captured pages evidence none of what makes proof defensible. I found no public information on revision-safe history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or answering for the state on a past date. 1
The Skeptic
OpsAudit, Reporting & Dashboards and Analytics are named, and "Autonomous Testing" is marketed as continuous. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, management reports, or auditor access roles. Reporting is asserted; defensible proof is not evidenced. 1
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
An Integrations & APIs page exists and autonomous testing is advertised, which puts this above a closed island; we found no public information on directory import, ticketing or CMDB connectors, SSO/SCIM, or what the API actually covers. 1
The GRC Consultant
The site claims integrations and an API and leads with autonomous testing and real-time GRC intelligence, which is beyond import-export territory, but we found no public information on named connectors — directory import, ticketing, CMDB, SSO — or on API documentation. The automation depth rests entirely on the vendor's own headline claims. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The vendor does publish an Integrations & APIs section, which is more than a closed island, and Autonomous Testing hints at automation; still, the captured page names no specific connector, and I found no public information on directory import, ticketing, CMDB or scanner feeds, or API documentation. Until a demo proves otherwise I would be re-typing my estate by hand. 1
The Lead Auditor
A dedicated Integrations & APIs section and an Autonomous Testing module are present, which is more than import and export alone. The capture names no specific connectors, no directory import, no SSO or SCIM and no API documentation, so the depth of live-estate feeding and automated evidence collection cannot be verified. 1
The Evidence Integrator
An Integrations & APIs area is confirmed, and the autonomous-testing and real-time-risk language gestures at automated checking — yet no connector is named anywhere: I found no public information on directory, ticketing, CMDB, cloud, endpoint, or SSO sources, and the API is a navigation label rather than documentation. Better than a CSV island on the strength of the label, but I cannot verify a single live feed into the estate. 1
The Skeptic
"Integrations & APIs" is confirmed as an offering, which is more than a closed island. But no connector is named, no API documentation is shown, and we found no public information on directory import, ticketing or CMDB connections; Autonomous Testing is sold without a single named evidence source. 1
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 legal entity is Optro, Inc. of 103 Foulk Road, Wilmington, Delaware, so my risk register would live with a US-jurisdiction vendor; I found no public information on hosting locations, a published DPA, or a subprocessor list, and no EU region is mentioned on the captured pages. 1
The GRC Consultant
Optro, Inc. is a Delaware-incorporated US entity and we found no public information on hosting locations, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list — only a Trust Center page whose contents were not captured. For a platform that would hold a client's entire risk register, the published evidence is about as far from a European posture as it gets, with a single point of light in the trust pages. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The vendor is Optro, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware — a US entity for the system that would hold my risk register — and no sovereignty details are on record: I found no public information on hosting region, a data-processing agreement, or a subprocessor list beyond a Trust Center link. As the accidental security officer, I can't hand the register to a US company without at least a published DPA and hosting statement. 1
The Lead Auditor
The legal entity is stated as Optro, Inc. at a Wilmington, DE address — a United States company for the system that would hold the risk register. No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location or default region, a DPA, or a subprocessor list, beyond the existence of a Trust Center page. 1
The Evidence Integrator
The legal entity is Optro, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware — a US company — and no sovereignty attributes are on record. I found no public information on EU hosting, named data centers, subprocessors, or a DPA; the capture offers only a privacy notice and a Trust Center link for the system that would hold the risk register. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor of record for this GRC platform — which would hold a customer's risk register — is Optro, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware, formerly AuditBoard. We found no public information on hosting location, a DPA, TOMs, or a subprocessor list; the only sovereignty-adjacent items are Trust & Security and Trust Center links. From entity to subprocessor, the European chain is unevidenced. 1
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
The only pricing-related element on the captured pages is a "SCHEDULE A DEMO" button; there are no public numbers for any of the ten modules, so the real invoice is a sales conversation by construction. 1
The GRC Consultant
We found no public pricing information at all — no edition, module, or per-user figures — and the only buying path on the captured pages is 'SCHEDULE A DEMO', so the real invoice is entirely a sales conversation. This is the market norm and the criterion describes rather than condemns it, but it is the norm's textbook case. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
No price figure appears in the captured material and the only way forward is scheduling a demo; with ten named modules and no edition, user-count or scale information published, the real invoice is a pure sales conversation. For a shop my size that is an immediate filter. 1
The Lead Auditor
No price appears anywhere in the capture; the ten named modules carry no figures, and the only buying path shown is scheduling a demo. No part of a real invoice can be computed from the public pages, with consulting and module boundaries equally unpublished. 1
The Evidence Integrator
The captured pages carry no price figures at all and route every engagement through a schedule-a-demo gate, so I found no public information on edition, module, or scale pricing, billing period, or how consulting is unbundled. The real invoice is not computable from what is published — unpublished pricing is common in this market, and here that is what the evidence shows. 1
The Skeptic
No price, billing period, or edition appears on the captured page; the sole buying path shown is "SCHEDULE A DEMO". We found no public information on module pricing, per-user or per-entity costs, or how consulting is separated from software. Unpublished pricing is the norm in this market, but this page leaves a buyer nothing to compute with. 1
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 29 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (auditboard.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
Sources (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page auditboard.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →