Information Security
Conformio
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Advisera d.o.o. · conformio.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
Conformio, from Advisera d.o.o. (legal entity Advisera Expert Solutions Ltd), is ISO 27001 compliance software for small businesses. It scores strongest on controls and the statement of applicability: Annex A controls are selected automatically from the company's risks, the SoA generates automatically with suggested policies, procedures and tasks, and internal audit and management review run in-product. Pricing transparency follows at 7-8: all three editions carry annual figures — Starter €1199 per year for 3 user accounts, Professional €1999 per year for 5 user accounts, Advanced €2299 per year with unlimited user accounts — with expert services stated as included and a 14-day trial that needs no card. Weakest are framework coverage, information security management and sovereignty: every captured capability is scoped to ISO 27001, the register is a predefined small-business risk list capped at 100 risks on Starter, and the pages show an EU office in Zagreb alongside a US office in New York, with no public information on hosting or subprocessors. Score ranges stayed narrow, widest at 0-2 on framework coverage and 2-4 on integrations and automation.
Speaks for it
- Annex A controls and the statement of applicability are generated automatically from the company's risks, with suggested policies, procedures and tasks
- Internal audit and management review run as built-in modules, with evidence upload and auditor access to all documents and evidence
- All three editions carry annual figures, from Starter at €1199 per year for 3 user accounts to Advanced at €2299 per year with unlimited user accounts, with expert services included in the subscription price
- The 14-day trial needs no card
- A pre-audit check with a certified expert is included on the Advanced tier
Held against it
- Every captured capability is scoped to ISO 27001, and we found no public information on a second regime such as NIS2, TISAX, DORA or SOC 2, or on cross-framework mapping
- The risk register is a predefined small-business list capped at 100 risks on Starter, and we found no public information on asset inventory, treatment tracking or incident handling
- The only connections named are SharePoint and Dropbox sync, and we found no public information on an API, directory import, ticketing or CMDB connectors
- The pages show an EU office in Zagreb and a US office in New York, and we found no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement or subprocessors
- We found no public information on revision-safe change history or audit-scoped evidence packs
Best for
- You are a small business working toward a first ISO 27001 certification and want the Annex A selection and statement of applicability generated for you
- You want a predictable published annual price with expert services included in the subscription rather than quoted separately
- You want to give your auditor shared access to all documents and evidence during the audit
Avoid if
- You must cover regimes beyond ISO 27001, such as NIS2, TISAX, DORA or SOC 2, or map one control to several frameworks
- Your risk program runs on asset inventory and treatment tracking rather than a predefined risk list
- Your platform must ingest the real IT estate through directory, ticketing or CMDB connections rather than document sync alone
- You must know where your risk register is hosted and processed before contract — the pages show EU and US offices and we found no public information on hosting or subprocessors
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
The register is a predefined small-business risk list with custom additions and a tier-based cap of 100 risks on Starter — a flat list, not a methodology. I found no public information on asset inventory, assessment matrices, treatment tracking with acceptance ownership, protection-needs inheritance, or incident handling with statutory reporting clocks, which is what I actually run an ISMS on. 1
The GRC Consultant
There is a genuine risk register — up to 100 risks on the entry plan, unlimited above it, seeded from a predefined small-business list — but I found no public information on asset inventory, a documented risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance, or any incident handling with NIS2-style clocks. A register without the asset-to-treatment chain is where I start an engagement, not where I run one. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The register is a predefined small-business risk list I can extend, capped at 100 risks on the entry tier and unlimited above, with a project management module and reminders around it — that is a flat list, usable alongside the day job but thin. I found no public information on asset inventory, a documented risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance, or incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks. 1
The Lead Auditor
What is captured is a risk register built from a predefined small-business risk list plus custom risks, capped at 100 risks on the entry edition — a flat list, and the rest of the ISMS backbone is invisible: we found no public information on asset inventory, assessment methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance or incident workflows with statutory clocks. This reads as certification-project scaffolding, not a risk backbone a certifier can work inside. 1
The Evidence Integrator
What the captured page shows is a risk register fed from a predefined list tailored to small businesses, a project-management module, automatic tasks and reminders, and a personalized maintenance plan — a guided document workflow rather than a risk methodology. We found no public information on a documented assessment methodology, protection-needs inheritance across related assets, or incident handling with statutory reporting clocks. 1
The Skeptic
The risk methodology on record is a predefined risk list "tailored for small businesses" with the option to add your own, and the Starter edition caps the register at 100 risks. We found no public information on asset inventory, risk treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance, or any incident handling — let alone statutory reporting clocks — so this sits at a flat risk list, nothing more. 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
Annex A controls are selected automatically from the company's risks and the Statement of Applicability is generated rather than hand-assembled, which lifts this above checklist-assembly tools. Internal audit and management review modules plus organized evidence uploads are stated; I found no public information on delegation and escalation in measure tracking, findings management, or versioned control catalog updates. 1
The GRC Consultant
Annex A controls select themselves from the declared risks, the SoA generates automatically with suggested policies, procedures and tasks, and internal audit and management review are supported in-product — that beats manual SoA assembly. I found no public information on measure delegation and escalation, audit findings management, or versioned control catalog updates, which is what separates a living control fabric from a very good template set. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
Annex A controls are selected automatically from my risks, the Statement of Applicability is generated automatically with suggested policies and tasks, and there are modules for internal audit and management review with evidence upload — the control side is guided rather than a consultant's checklist. I found no public information on findings management, delegation or escalation in measure tracking, or versioned catalog updates, which keeps it below the top band. 1
The Lead Auditor
Annex A controls are selected automatically based on the company's risks and the Statement of Applicability is generated automatically with suggested policies, procedures and tasks, and internal audit and management review are supported as modules — that genuinely clears the manual-assembly bar. We found no public information on measure ownership with delegation and escalation, findings management for audits, or versioned catalog maintenance, so the control fabric stops short of a living system. 1
The Evidence Integrator
Annex A controls are selected automatically from the company's risks and requirements, the Statement of Applicability is generated automatically with suggested policies, procedures and tasks, and internal audit and management review exist as modules. We found no public information on measure delegation, escalation, or versioned catalog updates, so this reads as a control set generated once from the risk list with task reminders, not controls that are continuously checked. 1
The Skeptic
This is the strongest evidenced area: Annex A controls are selected automatically from the company's risks, the SoA is generated automatically with suggested policies, procedures and tasks, and internal audit and management review modules are on the page. But we found no public information on measure ownership, delegation, escalation, or audit findings management, so the control side reads as guided checklists with auto-selection rather than a living control fabric. 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
Every captured statement centers on ISO 27001 — the forty-plus documents, Annex A, the SoA, the accredited experts, the weekly training. I found no public information on NIS2, TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz or SOC 2, so there is no evidence a single control maps to a second regime, which leaves my NIS2 exposure untouched by this product. 1
The GRC Consultant
Everything captured is ISO 27001 — Annex A, the SoA, over 40 audit-ready documents — and I found no public information on any second regime, let alone one-control-many-frameworks mapping. Answering a control once is the whole economics of my practice; this is a single-framework island, deep but alone. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
Every published mention points at one regime: it is marketed as ISO 27001 software for small businesses, with ISO 27001 experts, documents and weekly ISO 27001 training. I found no public information on any second framework — NIS2, TISAX, DORA, Grundschutz or SOC 2 — or on one control answering multiple regimes, so a second mandate would start from scratch. 1
The Lead Auditor
Every capability captured is scoped to ISO 27001 for small businesses — the 40-plus documents, Annex A selection, internal audit and management review — and we found no public information on a second regime such as NIS2, TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz or SOC 2, nor any cross-framework mapping. One regime, operationalized with auto-generated artifacts rather than a static checklist, is what the captured pages support. 1
The Evidence Integrator
Every captured capability is scoped to ISO 27001 — the product positions itself as ISO 27001 software for small businesses — and we found no public information on a second regime such as NIS2, TISAX, DORA or SOC 2, on cross-framework control mapping, or on content maintenance as regimes evolve. 1
The Skeptic
Every capability on record is ISO 27001-shaped — the tagline itself is "ISO 27001 Software for Small Businesses", and the documents, Annex A controls, SoA, internal audit and management review are all one regime. We found no public information on NIS2, TIS2X-era regimes like TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz, SOC 2, or any cross-framework mapping, so this is one hard-coded framework, honestly sold as such. 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
Evidence records can be uploaded and organized, all documents download as PDF, and sharing access with the auditor is a stated feature alongside internal audit and management review modules. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, or any way to answer what the state was on a given date, so the audit file is still assembled by hand. 1
The GRC Consultant
Evidence records can be uploaded and organized, an auditor can be granted access to all documents and evidence, documents export as PDF, and a certified expert runs a pre-audit check. I found no public information on revision-safe change history or reproducing the state on a given date, so I cannot call the audit file defensible from the published evidence. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
Evidence can be uploaded and organized, all documents download as PDF, the auditor can be given access to documents and evidence, and a pre-audit check with a certified expert is bundled on the top tier — that reads like a workable file for a small scope. I found no public information on revision-safe change history or audit-scoped evidence packs, so a defensible answer to "show me the state on a given date" is not evidenced. 1
The Lead Auditor
Evidence records can be uploaded and organized, documents downloaded as PDF, and dedicated auditor access to all documents and evidence is a stated feature, alongside internal audit and management review modules. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, versioned records or audit-scoped evidence packs, so nothing captured lets me answer 'show me the state on date X' — a gap I treat as decisive for this criterion. 1
The Evidence Integrator
Evidence can be uploaded and organized, auditors can be granted access to all documents and evidence, internal audit and management review are supported as modules, and everything exports as PDF. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, or any way to answer for the state on a given date. 1
The Skeptic
Evidence can be uploaded and organized, all documents download as PDF, the auditor can be given shared access to documents and evidence, and a pre-audit check with a certified expert ships on the top tier — genuinely useful mechanics. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, versioned records, or evidence packs scoped to an audit, and that trail is the difference between an audit file and a defensible one. 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
Document sync with SharePoint and Dropbox plus automatic tasks and reminders are the live connections on record, which is more than CSV in and PDF out. I found no public information on a documented API, directory or single-sign-on integration, ticketing, CMDB or scanner connectors, or automated evidence collection from the real estate. 1
The GRC Consultant
The only live connections I can see are SharePoint and Dropbox sync for documents; the automation is automatic tasks and reminders plus the Annex A and SoA auto-fill. I found no public information on a documented API, directory import, or ticketing, CMDB and scanner connectors, so the real IT estate never feeds the platform. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The only live connections named are SharePoint and Dropbox sync, and the automation on show is automatic tasks and reminders plus a personalized maintenance plan — reminders, not estate feeds. I found no public information on an API, directory import, ticketing, CMDB or SSO, which means the real IT estate gets re-typed by hand. 1
The Lead Auditor
The only live connections captured are SharePoint and Dropbox document sync, and the automation on record is automatic tasks and reminders; we found no public information on a documented API, directory import, CMDB or ticketing connectors, scanners or SSO. That is document-storage plumbing, not a platform feeding from the real IT estate. 1
The Evidence Integrator
The only live connection the captured page names is document sync with SharePoint or Dropbox; we found no public information on a public API, directory import, CMDB, ticketing, scanner or cloud connectors, SSO, or automated control tests. Automation here means automatic tasks, reminders and a maintenance plan — a curated document workflow with no feed from the real estate. 1
The Skeptic
The only connections on record are SharePoint and Dropbox sync plus automatic tasks and reminders. We found no public information on a documented API, directory import, ticketing, CMDB, cloud or endpoint sources, SSO or SCIM — automation here is reminders with a document-sync bolt-on, not feeding from the real IT estate. 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 captured pages name both Advisera d.o.o. and Advisera Expert Solutions Ltd, with an EU office in Zagreb and a US office on Broadway, New York. I found no public information on hosting location, data centers, a data processing agreement, TOMs or subprocessors — for a system that would hold my risk register itself, that silence decides it. 1
The GRC Consultant
The vendor page names Advisera Expert Solutions Ltd with an EU office in Zagreb and a US office in New York; I found no public information on hosting locations, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list. For the system that would hold a client's risk register, I need that chain documented before contract, not discovered after. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The vendor shows an EU office in Zagreb, but the same page shows a US office in New York for the same legal entity, and I found no public information on hosting location, a DPA, or a subprocessor list. Since the risk register is itself a target, an undocumented processing chain is a real problem however friendly the tool is. 1
The Lead Auditor
The captured page shows an EU office in Zagreb, Croatia and a US office in New York, but we found no public information on hosting location, named data centers, a DPA or a subprocessor list for the system that would hold the risk register. With non-European jurisdictional reach documented and the residency chain otherwise silent, the register's jurisdiction is unproven on the public record. 1
The Evidence Integrator
The captured page names Advisera Expert Solutions Ltd with an EU office in Zagreb and a US office in New York, but we found no public information on hosting location or data-center jurisdiction, a DPA, technical and organizational measures, or a subprocessor list. From these pages a buyer cannot place the system that would hold their risk register under a known law. 1
The Skeptic
An EU office in Zagreb is on record, but so is a New York office, and the captured pages give different entity names — Advisera d.o.o. as vendor and "Advisera Expert Solutions Ltd" as the legal entity. We found no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list, so nothing public establishes under whose law this risk register actually sits. 1
Pricing transparency
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
All three editions carry public euro prices with user and risk boundaries stated — Starter at €1199 per year for 3 users, Professional at €1999 per year for 5, Advanced at €2299 per year with unlimited accounts — and expert services are bundled with stated volumes rather than left open. The monthly figure is published only as an annual "4 months free" incentive, and awareness training beyond the 20 or 50 employee seats of each tier is unpriced, so a 400-employee invoice is close to computable but not fully. 1
The GRC Consultant
All three plans carry real numbers — €1199, €1999 and €2299 per year with 3, 5 and unlimited user accounts — with billing period stated, a 14-day trial without card, a four-months-free annual incentive, and expert services declared included in the subscription rather than quoted separately. Still unpriced are the monthly figure and any scale step beyond the 50 training seats, and I found no public information on setup fees. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
All three tiers carry public annual figures — €1199 per year for 3 users, €1999 per year for 5 users, €2299 per year for unlimited — with the per-tier expert services enumerated and stated as included in the subscription, plus a 14-day trial with no card, so the annual invoice is nearly computable. The monthly option is announced with an annual discount but carries no public figure, and per-entity boundaries are not stated, which leaves the last step of the calculation open. 1
The Lead Auditor
All three editions carry real annual figures — Starter €1199, Professional €1999, Advanced €2299 per year — with user boundaries stated (3, 5, unlimited), included expert services enumerated per tier, both billing periods offered, and support declared included in the subscription with no hidden costs. We found no public information on setup fees, numeric monthly figures or renewal terms, which leaves full invoice computability just out of reach. 1
The Evidence Integrator
All three editions carry exact annual figures — Starter at €1199 per year with three user accounts, Professional at €1999 per year with five, Advanced at €2299 per year with unlimited accounts — with tier contents and a 14-day no-card trial enumerated and all support and expert services stated as included in the subscription price. The monthly option is named without a figure, and software is inseparable from the bundled expert hours, so the total invoice is computable while a software-only cost is not. 1
The Skeptic
All three editions carry real numbers with billing period and user-account boundaries stated ("Starter €1199 per year" for 3 accounts up to "Advanced €2299 per year" with unlimited accounts), the 14-day trial needs no card, and expert services are stated as included in the subscription price. We found no public monthly figure — only the "Get 4 Months Free" incentive — and software and consulting are bundled rather than separated, which stops short of computing a services-excluded invoice. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 2 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Amazon AWS, Google Cloud, Supabase, Zoom and HubSpot are US-headquartered providers, while Brevo (France) and Kinsta (Hungary) are EU-based; the list is introduced with "services like", suggesting it may not be exhaustive.
- 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 compliance on the pages we read (conformio.com, advisera.com/terms). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page conformio.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage advisera.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →