whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Information Security

AuditBoard

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 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 Lead Auditor

Weighted verdict

Certifies ISMSs for a living and has seen every folder of screenshots. Optimizes for revision-safe history, an SoA generated from live control status, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X". Rejects audit trails assembled the week before the audit.

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

Scored by The Lead Auditor

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

Report an error

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 AuditBoard? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (1)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page auditboard.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →