whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Information Security

BIC GRC

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 GBTEC Software AG · www.gbtec.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

BIC GRC: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai BIC GRC: 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.

BIC GRC at a glance

Vendor
GBTEC Software AG
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates BIC GRC 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. BIC GRC from GBTEC Software AG took a flat 5 on controls and statement of applicability for an on-demand risk-control matrix, centralized and decentralized control selection, and adequacy and effectiveness assessment. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources

BIC GRC alternatives, European ones first →

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

The GRC Consultant

Weighted verdict

Builds and runs ISMSs for a dozen clients at once. Optimizes for reusable control catalogs, multi-framework mapping that answers a control once, and templates that make client twelve cheaper than client one. Rejects single-tenant tools and frameworks bolted on as checklists.

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

Scored by The GRC Consultant

Panel median The GRC Consultant 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 GRC Consultant
Asset & risk management depth 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
Controls, SoA & measures 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
Framework & standard coverage 1 of 5 1.5 of 5
Audit readiness & evidence 2.5 of 5 2 of 5
Integrations & automation 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
European sovereignty 1 of 5 1 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 GRC Consultant

Enterprise Risk brings a genuine methodology spine — configurable matrices scaling up to Monte Carlo simulation, interdependency analysis, and four treatment options with automated action tracking — and Technology Risk Management ties technology components and applications to business processes. What an ISMS needs beyond that is absent from the captured pages: we found no public information on incident handling, statutory reporting clocks, or inherited protection needs across asset relations. 2 3

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 GRC Consultant

Controls are wired to risks properly — a risk-control matrix at the push of a button, centralized and decentralized controls per risk, adequacy and effectiveness assessments, and one measure assignable to multiple risks, which is exactly the reuse that makes client twelve cheaper than client one. We found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation or versioned catalog updates, and the only named reference framework is COSO II ERM. 3 4 5

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 GRC Consultant

The only regime actually named anywhere is COSO II ERM; the rest is a claim of "all common control standards" plus do-it-yourself upload of company guidelines and laws. We found no public information on ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz content, and no evidence that a single control answer maps across frameworks rather than being re-answered per regime. 5 6

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 GRC Consultant

The audit machinery is real — multi-year program planning, scheduling, guided execution, findings with automatically suggested results, one-click reports, automated notifications of critical results to management, and stated support for external auditors. The proof side is silent: we found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence attachments per control, or a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X". 6 7

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 GRC Consultant

A documented REST API with bidirectional connectors to SAP, LeanIX, UiPath and Microsoft, plus automated import from the vendor's own process repository — but this connector set feeds process management, not the security estate. We found no public information on directory import, ticketing, SSO/SCIM or automated evidence collection, and the automation on display is reminders, action tracking and workflow guidance. 3 4 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 GRC Consultant

The vendor presents as GBTEC Software AG with German and Austrian contact numbers and German-language customer reviews, so the entity itself looks European. Beyond that, we found no public information on hosting location, data centers, a DPA or subprocessors — for a system that would hold a client's entire risk register, that silence is the finding. 1 3

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 GRC Consultant

The captured pages offer demo calls and a free trial, and no figures of any kind appear. We found no public information on edition, module, user or services pricing, so the real invoice is a sales conversation — the norm in this market, but there is nothing public to compute from. 3 4

Report an error

Questions about BIC GRC

Is BIC GRC European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where BIC GRC is based.

Where does BIC GRC store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

Does BIC GRC have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to BIC GRC?

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: BIC GRC 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 BIC GRC? 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.gbtec.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.gbtec.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.gbtec.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.gbtec.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.gbtec.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.gbtec.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.gbtec.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.gbtec.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.gbtec.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →