whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Information Security

DataGuard ISMS

EU-Made Report an error

Panel 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 DataCo GmbH · www.dataguard.de

Compare with SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS) → 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 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

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

A structured asset register with owners, tags and visualised dependencies, risks linked to assets, a distribution matrix and mitigation tasks with owners form a real chain, and asset updates can be fed from Azure. But we found no public information on a documented risk methodology, inherited protection needs across asset relations, or incident workflows carrying statutory reporting clocks; incident handling shows up as configurable workflows rather than a clocked process. 8 9 3 16

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

Measures are a first-class object with owners, status tracking, effectiveness assessment, tasks, custom definitions and one measure linkable to several frameworks, plus automatic evidence mapping to requirements. The statement-of-applicability content on the site reads as guidance about the standard's demands rather than an on-demand SoA generated from live control status, and we found no public information on internal audit workflows or findings management. 10 11 9

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

Five regimes for its market — DSGVO, ISO 27001 including the 2022 revision, TISAX, NIS2 and the EU AI Act — with a published mapping of NIS2 requirements onto ISO 27001 clauses and controls, and measures reusable across frameworks on one data basis. Additional frameworks are explicitly marked as upcoming, and we found no public information on DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz or SOC 2 coverage. 7 13 10 3

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

Automatic capture and storage of compliance documentation, real-time dashboards, generated downloadable and shareable reports, and a customer case citing 140-plus evidence artifacts point toward evidence collected continuously rather than assembled before the audit. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs or auditor access roles; the versioning language on the captured pages describes what the standard demands of the customer, not a product feature. 14 16 12 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 the right direction: automated Azure asset updates, Jira and Asana connectors set up in under fifteen minutes, CRM consent-data flows, and continuous real-time synchronisation of data flows into a central repository — the platform feeds from the estate instead of a bulk-import drawbridge. But the API surfaces only as a navigation label with no documented surface or parity claims, and we found no public information on directory sync, SSO or SCIM, webhooks, or automated control tests with human review. 16 8 1 3

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

A German GmbH with a Munich commercial register entry, a published EU privacy policy and standard contractual clauses under Article 46 GDPR for recipients outside the EEA — which itself confirms third-country transfers occur. We found no public information on hosting location, data residency, a published data processing agreement or a subprocessor list, ownership is undocumented, and a London office sits in the group. 6 7 5

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

Plan names and feature groupings for Base, Pro and Enterprise are public, but every tier, including Base, is quote-only ('Angebot anfordern') with no figure anywhere on the captured pricing page. The only cost signals are comparative marketing claims — up to fifty percent cheaper than external consultants, no hidden costs — which leave the real invoice incomputable. 4 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 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

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 DataGuard ISMS? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (17)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage (DE) www.dataguard.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 ISO 27001 framework page www.dataguard.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 NIS2 framework page www.dataguard.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Vendor pricing page www.dataguard.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 About page www.dataguard.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Imprint www.dataguard.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Privacy policy www.dataguard.de Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.dataguard.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.dataguard.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.dataguard.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.dataguard.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.dataguard.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.dataguard.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.dataguard.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.dataguard.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  16. 16 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.dataguard.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  17. 17 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.dataguard.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →