whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Information Security

Centraleyes

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 Centraleyes Inc. · www.centraleyes.com

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

Link to this page

Centraleyes: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Centraleyes: 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.

Centraleyes at a glance

Vendor
Centraleyes Inc.
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 Centraleyes 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Centraleyes is an AI-powered risk and compliance platform built around four modules — 1st Party, 3rd Party, Boardview and an AI Risk Register. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 16 Oct 2026. all sources

Centraleyes alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Evidence Integrator

Weighted verdict

Believes evidence that is typed is evidence that is stale. Optimizes for connectors to the live estate — directory, CMDB, ticketing, cloud — continuous control checks, and an API with parity to the UI. Rejects data islands with a CSV drawbridge.

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

Scored by The Evidence Integrator

Panel median The Evidence Integrator 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 Evidence Integrator
Asset & risk management depth 2 of 5 2 of 5
Controls, SoA & measures 2 of 5 2.5 of 5
Framework & standard coverage 4 of 5 4 of 5
Audit readiness & evidence 3 of 5 3 of 5
Integrations & automation 3 of 5 3.5 of 5
European sovereignty 0 of 5 0.5 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 Evidence Integrator

Risk identification, scoring, treatment planning and monitoring are evidenced, with remediation tasks assigned, tracked and reminded and an AI risk register behind the first-party module. But we found no public information on asset inventory, protection-needs inheritance across asset relations, a documented risk methodology, or incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks. 1 2 6 7 10

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 Evidence Integrator

Controls, requirements and evidence are mapped once and applied across frameworks, and the platform assigns remediation tasks to people and tracks progress with reminders — genuine measure ownership. The Statement of Applicability material captured is a step-by-step educational guide alongside an ISO 27001 questionnaire rather than on-demand SoA generation, and we found no public information on internal audit workflows or findings management. 2 4 6 7 10

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 Evidence Integrator

TISAX is operationalized down to the AL1–AL3 assessment levels, NIS2 and NIST CSF sit in Smart Mapping, and the ISO 27001:2022 adoption shows the library moving with the standards; one-control-many-frameworks mapping is directly claimed and crosswalking automated. The captured pages give different figures for library size, from more than fifty pre-loaded to over a hundred and eighty frameworks, and we found no public information on a documented update cadence or per-industry profiles. 1 2 4 5 6 7

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 Evidence Integrator

Evidence is centralized and mapped per control, collected automatically via APIs with automated compliance testing, stored under custom roles and permissions, and consolidated reports "with complete audit trails" arrive in a few clicks. That audit-trail claim is a single phrase with no detail behind it, and we found no public information on revision-safe history, audit-scoped evidence packs, or auditor access roles. 6 7 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 Evidence Integrator

This is a live-estate play, not a CSV drawbridge: bidirectional Jira and ServiceNow integration pushing data out and pulling updates back, API-driven automated evidence collection with cloud sources like AWS and Google Cloud named, continuous vulnerability scanning, automated external threat-intelligence scanning of the vendor surface, and a feature announcement of an advanced Tenable integration. What I cannot verify holds it back: we found no public information on directory import, CMDB, SSO/SCIM, webhooks, or a documented API reference, so API parity to the UI is unproven. 8 9 10 11

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 Evidence Integrator

Every sovereignty attribute — entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency, subprocessor exposure — is undocumented in what was captured, and we found no public information on a DPA, subprocessor list or hosting location. A buyer cannot see under whose law their risk register would actually sit. 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 Evidence Integrator

The only pricing signals are a free-entry invitation and a demo call-to-action; we found no public prices for any edition, module, billing period or setup. The real invoice is a sales conversation end to end. 5 9

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 — uncited Report an error

Questions about Centraleyes

Is Centraleyes European?

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

Where does Centraleyes store data?

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

Does Centraleyes have a free plan?

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

What are the best alternatives to Centraleyes?

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: Centraleyes 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 Centraleyes? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (11)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.centraleyes.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.centraleyes.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.centraleyes.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.centraleyes.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.centraleyes.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.centraleyes.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.centraleyes.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.centraleyes.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.centraleyes.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.centraleyes.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.centraleyes.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →