Information Security
Avilius
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Avilius GmbH · avilius.de
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.
Avilius at a glance
- Vendor
- Avilius GmbH
- 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 Avilius 0/5, the mean of 6 judges. Avilius reaches this bench listed in the information-security category, but the captured pages present a care and everyday-assistance service in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss, founded in 2010 — and the scores follow that mismatch: information security management, controls and statement of applicability, framework coverage, audit readiness, and integrations and automation all score 0. 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
Avilius reaches this bench listed in the information-security category, but the captured pages present a care and everyday-assistance service in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss, founded in 2010 — and the scores follow that mismatch: information security management, controls and statement of applicability, framework coverage, audit readiness, and integrations and automation all score 0. The strongest area is sovereignty, where scores range from 1 to 2; the spread turns on how much credit the German entity and the Kaarst and Bielefeld locations earn, and at both ends of that range we found no public information on hosting, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list. On connections, the only item on record is a "Mit Facebook verbinden" button beside a contact form, with no public information on an API or connectors to a live estate. On cost, the only public information is a free on-site consultation and a note that health-insurance coverage will be clarified.
Speaks for it
- A German entity is on record, founded in 2010 in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss with locations in Kaarst and Bielefeld
- A free on-site consultation is offered, per the captured pages
- The company states it clarifies which costs the health insurance covers
- A privacy policy is referenced for the contact form
Held against it
- The captured pages present a care and everyday-assistance service rather than information-security software
- We found no public information on asset inventory, risk methodology, treatment tracking or incident handling
- We found no public information on control catalogs, a statement of applicability or internal audit support
- No compliance regime — ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz or SOC 2 — appears in the captured material
- The only connection on record is a 'Mit Facebook verbinden' button, with no public information on an API, directory import, ticketing, CMDB or scanner connectors
Best for
- You are looking for care and everyday-assistance services in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss — the market the captured pages actually address
- You want to start with a free on-site consultation before any commitment
- You want clarity on what your health insurance will cover before you engage
Avoid if
- You are buying an ISMS or GRC platform — the captured pages present caregiving services, a contact form and appointments by arrangement instead
- You must evidence a regime such as ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz or SOC 2 — the pages show health-insurance cost clarification and free on-site consultation instead of any compliance regime
- You need connections to your live IT estate — the only connection shown is a 'Mit Facebook verbinden' button beside a contact form
- You require disclosed hosting, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list — the published addresses belong to care-service offices and we found no public information on hosting
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Asset & risk management depth | 0 of 5 |
| Controls, SoA & measures | 0 of 5 |
| Framework & standard coverage | 0 of 5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 0 of 5 |
| Integrations & automation | 0 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 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
The captured page presents care and everyday-assistance services in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss region, and we found no public information on an asset inventory, a risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance, or incident handling. Nothing here resembles ISMS substance, let alone a risk backbone. 1
The GRC Consultant
The captured pages present care and everyday-assistance services in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss, and we found no public information on asset inventory, a risk methodology, treatment tracking, or incident handling — so there is no ISMS substance here to point a client at. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The captured pages describe a care service and everyday-helpers business; I found no public information on asset inventory, risk methodology, treatment tracking or incident handling. Information security is not even a chapter on the site, so there is no ISMS substance in evidence to assess. 1
The Lead Auditor
The captured pages describe a care and everyday-helper service founded in 2010 in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss, and we found no public information on asset inventory, risk methodology, protection-needs inheritance, or incident handling. There is no ISMS substance here for an assessment to work with. 1
The Evidence Integrator
The captured page describes a care and everyday-assistance service founded 2010 in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss; we found no public information on asset inventory, risk methodology, treatment tracking, or incident handling. The only security-adjacent content is a privacy-policy reference attached to a contact form. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page presents a care and everyday-assistance service in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss, founded in 2010, and I found no public information on any asset inventory, risk methodology, treatment tracking, or incident handling. With zero information-security management substance visible, this is the total-absence case and I score it at the bottom. 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
We found no public information on control catalogs, a statement of applicability, measure ownership, or internal audit support of any kind. There is no control side of an ISMS evidenced to evaluate. 1
The GRC Consultant
We found no public information on control catalogs, statement-of-applicability generation, measure ownership, or internal audit support; nothing in the captured material addresses the control side of an ISMS. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
I found no public information on control catalogs, a statement of applicability, measure ownership or internal audit workflows. Not even a static checklist is shown, so the control side of an ISMS is entirely unevidenced. 1
The Lead Auditor
The only security-adjacent item captured is a privacy-policy line attached to a contact form; we found no public information on control catalogs, a statement of applicability, measure ownership, or internal-audit support. A buyer would be buying entirely on trust. 1
The Evidence Integrator
We found no public information on control catalogs, a statement of applicability, measure ownership, or internal audit support; the captured content concerns caregiver services, cost clarification with health insurers, and free on-site consultation. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on control catalogs, a statement of applicability, measure ownership, or internal audit support; the only workflow the capture shows is a contact form and appointments by arrangement. Nothing on the control side of an ISMS is evidenced, so the lowest score applies. 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
No regime is named anywhere on the captured page — not ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz or SOC 2 — and we found no public information on any compliance content or cross-mapping. 1
The GRC Consultant
We found no public information on coverage of any regime — ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz, SOC 2 — and therefore no multi-framework mapping to assess. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
I found no public information on framework or standard coverage — the captures contain no mention of ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX or any comparable regime. With no regime of any kind in evidence, this sits at the floor of the scale. 1
The Lead Auditor
We found no public information on ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz or SOC 2 coverage; the captured pages present health-insurance cost clarification and free on-site consultation instead of any compliance regime. 1
The Evidence Integrator
No framework — ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz, SOC 2 or otherwise — appears in the captured material, and we found no public information on compliance-regime support of any kind. 1
The Skeptic
The capture names no compliance regime at all — I found no public information on ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz, or SOC 2 content, and no mapping of any kind. The page markets caregiving services, so no framework coverage is evidenced. 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
We found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence collection, auditor access, or report generators. There is nothing evidenced from which a defensible audit file could be produced. 1
The GRC Consultant
We found no public information on revision-safe history, evidence collection, or auditor- and authority-ready reports; the sole compliance signal is a privacy policy applying to the contact form. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The only evidence-adjacent item on the pages is a contact form with a privacy-policy note. I found no public information on revision-safe history, report generators, evidence attachments or auditor access, so defensible proof output cannot be assessed. 1
The Lead Auditor
The captured pages show a contact form and support by appointment only; we found no public information on versioned records, evidence attachments, auditor-facing reports, or any revision-safe history. I cannot certify what leaves no trail. 1
The Evidence Integrator
We found no public information on revision-safe history, evidence collection, report generators, or auditor access; the only document referenced publicly is a privacy policy governing a contact form. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on revision-safe history, evidence collection, or auditor-, authority-, or management-facing reporting; the page offers a contact form and a privacy-policy reference applying to that form. No audit-readiness substance is visible to score. 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
The only connection on record is a social-media connect button alongside a contact form, and we found no public information on a documented API, directory import, CMDB, ticketing, or scanner integrations. For my purposes this is a closed island with no live estate to feed from. 1
The GRC Consultant
The only connective features in evidence are a Facebook connection and a contact form; we found no public information on an API, directory import, or ticketing, CMDB, and scanner connectors feeding the real IT estate. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The single connection the pages show is a "Mit Facebook verbinden" button beside a contact form — a social link, not a feed from an IT estate. I found no public information on directory import, a documented API, ticketing, CMDB, scanner or SSO connections, so automation cannot be scored above a closed island. 1
The Lead Auditor
The only connective features captured are a "Mit Facebook verbinden" button and a contact form; we found no public information on directory import, a documented API, ticketing or CMDB connectors, or automated evidence collection. 1
The Evidence Integrator
The single connection the captured page offers is "Mit Facebook verbinden", a social link; we found no public information on directory import, CMDB, ticketing, scanners, or an API. A platform I cannot wire to the live estate is a data island, and the one visible drawbridge here is a social button. 1
The Skeptic
The single connection the capture shows is a "Mit Facebook verbinden" button, which is social reach rather than a feed from an IT estate. I found no public information on an API, directory import, ticketing, CMDB, or scanner connections — the closed-island case. 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
A German entity is on record — founded 2010 in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss, with locations in Kaarst and Bielefeld — which is the one signal in my favor. Beyond that we found no public information on data centers, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list for any platform that would hold a risk register, so the jurisdictional chain cannot be assessed. 1
The GRC Consultant
The captured pages do establish a German company — founded 2010 in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss, with addresses in Kaarst and Bielefeld — and a privacy policy is referenced for the contact form. Beyond that we found no public information on hosting locations, subprocessors, a data processing agreement, or published technical and organisational measures. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The pages evidence a German operation — founded 2010 in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss — plus a privacy-policy reference for a contact form, which keeps this just off the bottom. Beyond that, I found no public information on hosting for any platform, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list; the two addresses shown (Kaarst and Bielefeld) belong to care services and read as branch offices, not data centers. 1
The Lead Auditor
The founding region and captured addresses point to a German-operated business, which earns a step above the floor, but those Kaarst and Bielefeld addresses are care-service offices and we found no public information on hosting for any system, on a data processing agreement, or on subprocessors. 1
The Evidence Integrator
The vendor is a German entity founded in the Rhein-Kreis Neuss, and the published addresses in Kaarst and Bielefeld belong to care-service offices rather than any disclosed data centers; we found no public DPA, subprocessor list, or hosting disclosure for a system holding a risk register. A referenced privacy policy and an evidently European entity keep this just above the floor. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor is a German GmbH and the captured addresses sit in Kaarst and Bielefeld, but those are care-service offices, and I found no public information on data centers, hosting arrangements, a published data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list; the only privacy statement found applies to a form. I credit the European entity and locations but score well below any published-chain standard. 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 published price point is a free on-site consultation, plus a service clarifying what the health insurance covers; we found no public prices for any product, edition, or module. No invoice, for any size of company, can be computed from the public pages. 1
The GRC Consultant
The only pricing signals are a free on-site consultation and the note that the company clarifies which costs the health insurance covers; we found no public prices, editions, or scale steps from which an invoice could be computed. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
No software price of any kind appears in the captures; what the pages do state is free on-site consultation and that they clarify which costs the health insurance covers. With no editions, modules, user figures or licence prices published, the real invoice is not computable from public pages — everything runs through a sales conversation on request. 1
The Lead Auditor
The only cost statements captured are a free on-site consultation and a note that health-insurance coverage of costs will be clarified; we found no public prices for any software edition or module, and contact runs through a form with appointments only by arrangement. 1
The Evidence Integrator
The page states the on-site consultation is free and offers to clarify which costs a health insurer covers, but we found no public prices for any product, edition, or module, and contact runs through appointments arranged individually. One gratis consultation is not price computability; it is the start of a sales conversation. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public price for any service; the only cost information is an on-site consultation offered "kostenlos" and a promise to clarify what the health insurance covers. With contact running through appointments only, the real invoice is a conversation — one point above the bottom for the free-consultation signal. 1
Questions about Avilius
Is Avilius European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Avilius is based.
Where does Avilius store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Avilius have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Avilius?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates 6clicks (3.5/5), preeco | informationssicherheit (3.5/5) and Secfix (3.5/5) 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: Avilius 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.
- 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 (avilius.de). 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 avilius.de Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →