whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Information Security

eramba

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 eramba Ltd. · www.eramba.org

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

Link to this page

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

eramba at a glance

Vendor
eramba Ltd.
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
Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 20 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates eramba 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. eramba is an information-security GRC platform whose scores peak on pricing and controls. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources

eramba alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Lead Auditor

Weighted verdict

Certifies ISMSs for a living and has seen every folder of screenshots. Optimizes for revision-safe history, an SoA generated from live control status, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X". Rejects audit trails assembled the week before the audit.

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

Scored by The Lead Auditor

Panel median The Lead Auditor 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 Lead Auditor
Asset & risk management depth 3 of 5 2.5 of 5
Controls, SoA & measures 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Framework & standard coverage 4 of 5 3 of 5
Audit readiness & evidence 3 of 5 2.5 of 5
Integrations & automation 2.5 of 5 2 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1 of 5
Pricing transparency 4 of 5 4 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 Lead Auditor

The risk module identifies, classifies and treats risks with mandatory owners and review dates, untreated items are recorded as documented decisions with owners and expiry, and incidents run a full lifecycle from detection through lessons learned. We found no public information on an asset inventory with inherited protection needs, a documented risk methodology, or incident workflows carrying the statutory NIS2 24h/72h reporting clocks — which is what separates working risk tooling from the backbone a certifier works inside. 5 6

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 Lead Auditor

The statement of applicability is produced from the compliance analysis that links requirements to controls, policies, projects and risks, and internal controls are tested on schedules with collected evidence — the control side is operable rather than a checklist. We found no public information on internal-audit workflows with findings management or on measure delegation and escalation, and approvals, reviews and attestation are presented as a roadmap item rather than shipped. 5 6 1

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 Lead Auditor

Twenty-three regimes are named — including NIS2, DORA, TISAX, C5 and CPS 230 — with 70+ ready packages, a free NIS2 CSV download, any custom framework uploadable as CSV, and a visible maintenance cadence of eleven releases last year. We found no public information on one-control-many-frameworks mapping on a single data basis, so answering a second regime may still mean working a fresh package rather than reusing live answers. 4 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 Lead Auditor

Auditors can be given read-only accounts scoped to what they need to see, controls collect evidence on test schedules, and requirement status is shown over time with expired reviews and failed audits flagged before the auditor asks. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, or a defensible reconstruction of the state on a given date; an activity log is listed among capabilities, but the captured pages do not show tamper-evident history. 5 6 1

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 Lead Auditor

A REST API, notifications, reporting and an MCP server for plain-language queries are documented, accounts can be pulled from customer systems for review, and frameworks import as CSV packages. We found no public information on directory imports such as AD or Entra, native ticketing or CMDB connectors, SSO/SCIM, webhooks, or automated evidence testing against the live IT estate — the automation shown is scheduled tests and triggers rather than estate-fed monitoring. 4 1 6 5

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 Lead Auditor

The vendor is an England-and-Wales company, SaaS runs on AWS with the customer choosing an EU or US region, telemetry from installed instances lands on EU servers, and a genuine self-hosted edition lets the whole register live on the customer's own infrastructure. We found no public information on a published data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, or EU hosting as the default — thin transparency for the system that holds the risk register itself. 2 3 4

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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 Lead Auditor

Real numbers are public for every edition: Community is free self-hosted with no user or time limit, the on-premises edition is shown flat at €2,500 per year with unlimited users on one page and 'from 2500€/year' on another, SaaS is 'from 5000€/year', all modules and frameworks are included, and the terms state VAT treatment plus a renewal formula of CPI with an optional 3%. The 'from' qualifiers and the absence of any stated setup fee leave the top of the invoice uncomputable, short of the two-minute exercise. 4 5 6 2

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 ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error

Questions about eramba

Is eramba European?

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

Where does eramba store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.

Does eramba have a free plan?

Yes. eramba has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 20 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to eramba?

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

Sources (6)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.eramba.org Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.eramba.org Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.eramba.org Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.eramba.org Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.eramba.org Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.eramba.org Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →