Information Security
Hyperproof
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 Hyperproof Inc. · hyperproof.io
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
Hyperproof Inc. is a GRC platform whose public evidence runs strong on claimed breadth and weak on proof. Framework coverage is its strongest category (4-8, clustering at 6-8): judges credited the claimed 160+ pre-built frameworks, automated control mapping and a common control set as pointing toward one-control-many-frameworks operation, while noting the pages name no specific regime. Judges split three ways on breadth: framework coverage 4-8, controls and statement of applicability 3-6, integrations and automation 2-7 — the skeptic scored low throughout because the 160+ frameworks, 200+ integrations and partner ecosystem are counts with no named regime, connector or API documentation behind them, while others read the same claims as signal of a live platform. Audit readiness and information security management rest on module names and vendor metrics — $150K saved per year, 70% workload reduction — with nothing public on evidence collection or risk methodology. Sovereignty scored 0-1: no attributes on record, no hosting location, DPA or subprocessor list on the captured pages. No prices appear; the only calculator estimates savings, not an invoice.
Speaks for it
- Framework coverage scored highest of the seven criteria at 4-8, on a claimed library of 160+ pre-built frameworks with automated control mapping and a common control set.
- Controls are described as connected to risks with automated control operations, which judges read as more than a static checklist.
- Seven modules are named on one platform: Compliance, Risk, Audit, Trust, Third-Party Risk, Governance and Hyperproof Gov.
- Integrations scored 6-7 from five judges on a claimed 200+ integrations, a best-in-class partner ecosystem and purpose-built AI agents that automate control mapping.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 0-1: the vendor is listed as Hyperproof Inc. and we found no public information on hosting location, a DPA, a subprocessor list or technical and organizational measures.
- Not one framework regime or integration connector is named on the captured pages — the "largest framework library in the compliance market" is a superlative without a list, and the 160+ and 200+ counts name no catalog.
- Audit readiness scored 2-4, with no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence collection per control, auditor access roles or report generation.
- Claimed metrics — $150K saved per year, 66% reduction in duplicative controls, 90% improved stakeholder visibility, a 70% workload reduction — are vendor claims with nothing public behind them, and the pages name the risk module as Risk in the module list and Mitigate in the customer story.
- No prices appear on the captured pages; the only calculator estimates hours saved and risk reduction, not an invoice.
Best for
- You run one control set against many frameworks at once and want a claimed 160+-framework library with automated mapping rather than parallel checklists.
- You want a broad single-platform GRC suite — seven named modules from Compliance to Third-Party Risk — rather than stitching point tools together.
- You bring your own risk methodology and asset inventory, and need control orchestration more than a documented ISMS backbone.
Avoid if
- You must evidence a European chain — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need audit mechanics documented now — revision-safe change history, evidence packs, auditor access — since audit readiness scored 2-4 on a module name and positioning.
- You need the 160+ frameworks and 200+ integrations verified against named regimes and named connectors before shortlisting.
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
A Risk module is named, the copy says controls connect to risks, and a Mitigate module is credited in one case study — that is the extent of it. I found no public information on a documented risk methodology, asset inventory, protection-needs inheritance, incident handling with NIS2 reporting clocks, or risk acceptance with named owners, and a module name does not answer who accepted what. 1
The GRC Consultant
A dedicated Risk module with controls connected to risks and a mitigation case study is more than a flat risk list, but it stops short of an ISMS backbone: we found no public information on asset inventory, protection-needs inheritance, a documented risk methodology, or incident handling with statutory reporting clocks. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
A Risk module and third-party risk are named, and the pages do say controls connect to risks, which is the shape of real risk work. I found no public information on a documented methodology, asset inventory, treatment tracking with owners, protection-needs inheritance, or incident handling with statutory reporting clocks. 1
The Lead Auditor
A Risk module, a Third-Party Risk module and a stated connection between controls and risks give me a starting point, but the captured page stops at module names and marketing metrics. We found no public information on risk methodology, asset inventory, protection-needs inheritance, or incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks, so this is a marketed risk register with nothing verifiable behind it. 1
The Evidence Integrator
A named Risk module, a 'connect controls to risks' claim and a Mitigate case study are all the captured page offers; I found no public information on asset inventory, a documented risk methodology, protection-needs inheritance, or incident handling with statutory reporting clocks. 1
The Skeptic
Public pages name Risk, Audit and Third-Party Risk modules and say controls connect to risks, but we found no public information on asset inventory, a risk methodology, treatment tracking, or incident handling with statutory reporting clocks. The $150K-saved-per-year and 70% workload-reduction figures are vendor claims with nothing behind them, and the module list and the customer story give different names for the risk module. 1
Controls, SoA & measures
panel disagrees
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
The captured copy shows a common control set, automated control mapping, and controls connected to risks, which is genuinely more than a static checklist. I found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation from live status, measure ownership with delegation and escalation, or internal audit workflows with findings management. 1
The GRC Consultant
Automated control operations, controls connected to risks, and a maintained common control set describe a control fabric meant to be operated rather than ticked off — the reusable-catalog idea I build clients on. Beyond an Audit module named in the module list, we found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation, measure delegation and escalation, or findings management. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
Automated control operations, controls connected to risks, and one common control set across the enterprise is more than a static checklist. I found no public information on generating a statement of applicability, measure ownership and due dates, or audit findings workflows, so I can't judge whether the control side runs without a consultant. 1
The Lead Auditor
The page shows controls connected to risks and a common control set with automated mapping, which clears the plain-checklist bar. We found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation, measure ownership with due dates, or how the Audit module manages findings, so the operable control fabric is asserted rather than shown. 1
The Evidence Integrator
Automated control operations, a common control set and AI-assisted control mapping are claimed, which is more than a bare catalog; but there is no public information on statement-of-applicability generation, measure ownership with due dates, or internal audit workflows with findings management. 1
The Skeptic
Automated control operations, a common control set and a connection between controls and risks are claimed, but we found no public information on statement of applicability generation, measure ownership with due dates, or internal audit findings workflows. What the pages show is capability marketing on a homepage, not an operable control fabric. 1
Framework & standard coverage
panel disagrees
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
One hundred sixty plus pre-built frameworks is claimed as the largest library in the compliance market, and the common-control-set plus automated-mapping language points toward one control answering many frameworks rather than separate islands. I found no public information naming which regimes are actually covered — ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz — or any per-industry profiles or documented update cadence when a standard moves. 1
The GRC Consultant
One hundred sixty pre-built frameworks with automated control mapping and a claimed 66% reduction in duplicative controls is the one-control-many-frameworks posture I run client ISMSs on. We found no public information naming specific regimes such as NIS2, TISAX or DORA, nor per-industry profiles or a documented update cadence when standards move. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
160-plus pre-built frameworks plus a claim of automated control mapping reads like genuine one-control-many-frameworks coverage rather than parallel checklists. I found no public information naming specific regimes — ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA and BSI IT-Grundschutz all go unmentioned — and nothing on per-industry profiles or update cadence, so the count stays unverifiable. 1
The Lead Auditor
One hundred sixty pre-built frameworks is claimed as the largest library in the market, and automated control mapping plus a common control set point toward one-control-many-frameworks operation. The capture names not a single regime — no ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX or Grundschutz appears — and we found no public information on update cadence when a standard moves. 1
The Evidence Integrator
160+ pre-built frameworks is an enormous claimed count, yet not a single regime is named and the cross-framework mapping is asserted rather than shown; no mapping mechanics on one data basis and no update cadence appear anywhere. 1
The Skeptic
"160+ pre-built frameworks" billed as "the largest framework library in the compliance market" is a superlative with no list behind it — we found no public information naming which regimes (ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA, SOC 2) are actually covered or how they are maintained. The common-control-set and automated control mapping claims do point toward one-control-many-frameworks mapping, which keeps this above separate-checklist territory. 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
An Audit module appears in the module list and continuous compliance is the pitch, but as defensible proof that is a module name and a slogan. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or any answer to show-me-the-state-on-date-X. 1
The GRC Consultant
An Audit module appears in the module list beside claims of continuous compliance and 90% improved stakeholder visibility, but visibility is not proof. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, per-control evidence collection, auditor access roles, or exportable evidence packs an external auditor would accept as-is. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
Audit is one of the named modules and continuous compliance is the core promise, with a claimed 90 percent improvement in stakeholder visibility into risks. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence collection per control, auditor access roles, or management reports. 1
The Lead Auditor
An Audit module and a continuous-compliance claim are everything the page offers on proof; my three questions — revision-safe history, evidence packs by audit scope, and the state on a given date — go unanswered. We found no public information on versioned records, auditor access roles, or report generators, and I do not certify against homepage assertions. 1
The Evidence Integrator
The module list includes Audit and that is the whole of it — no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or an answer to the state on a given date. 1
The Skeptic
An Audit module appears in the module list and one customer story cites a 70% workload reduction, but we found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence collection, auditor access roles or report generation. Nothing on the captured pages shows what an auditor would actually be handed. 1
Integrations & automation
panel disagrees
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
Two hundred plus integrations, a partner ecosystem, AI agents and automated control mapping are all claimed, and the counts are strong for this market. I found no public information naming the connectors — ticketing, directory, CMDB, cloud or endpoint sources — or evidencing a documented API, SSO/SCIM, webhooks, or automated evidence tests with human review. 1
The GRC Consultant
Two hundred plus integrations, a partner ecosystem, and purpose-built agents that automate control mapping go beyond reminder-level automation. A count is not a connector, though: we found no public information naming directory import, ticketing or CMDB connectors, a documented API, SSO/SCIM, or automated evidence tests with human review. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
200-plus integrations, a partner ecosystem, and AI agents that handle the complexity behind the scenes suggest real automation rather than reminders. The pages name no individual connector and show no documented API, webhooks, or SSO/SCIM, so I can't confirm my directory and ticketing would feed this instead of me re-typing it. 1
The Lead Auditor
Two hundred plus integrations and a partner ecosystem are claimed, which if real sits well past the handful-of-connectors level, but the capture names none of them and shows no API documentation. We found no public information on directory import, ticketing or CMDB connectors, SSO/SCIM, or automated evidence tests with human review. 1
The Evidence Integrator
200+ integrations and continuous-compliance positioning signal live connections rather than a CSV drawbridge, but the page names not one connector — no directory, CMDB, ticketing or cloud source — and shows no API documentation or automated evidence testing. A count I cannot open is a claim, not a connector set. 1
The Skeptic
"200+ powerful integrations" and a "best-in-class partner ecosystem" are counts without a catalog: not a single connector is named on the captured pages, and we found no public information on a documented API, directory import, ticketing or CMDB connections, or automated evidence collection. A superlative number is brochure material until the connector list and API documentation are public. 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 vendor is Hyperproof Inc. and we found no public information on hosting jurisdiction, named data centers, a DPA, a subprocessor list, or TOMs. For a platform that would hold the company's risk register — itself a target — that is an entirely unevidenced chain, and the score reflects only that absence. 1
The GRC Consultant
No sovereignty attributes are on record and we found no public information on hosting location, a published DPA, a subprocessor list, or any European entity — for a system that would hold the client risk register, itself a target. The vendor is named as Hyperproof Inc., which is the only jurisdictional signal the evidence offers. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The vendor is Hyperproof Inc., an Inc.-style entity, and there are no sovereignty attributes on record: I found no public information on hosting location or an EU region, a DPA, or a subprocessor list for the platform that would hold my risk register. That silence from a US-incorporated vendor is as low as this range goes for me. 1
The Lead Auditor
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the capture names the vendor as Hyperproof Inc. and we found no public information on hosting location, a DPA, or a subprocessor list. For the system that would hold a client's risk register, a wholly undocumented jurisdictional chain is something I would flag at certification review. 1
The Evidence Integrator
Nothing in the captured material touches hosting location, entity jurisdiction, a DPA, a subprocessor list or TOMs; for the system that would hold the risk register itself, silence at this depth sits at the bottom of the scale. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor is listed as Hyperproof Inc. and no sovereignty information is on record; the captured pages show no hosting location, DPA, subprocessor list or technical and organizational measures. For a system intended to hold a company's risk register, we found no public information on any link in the European chain — entity, hosting or processors. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
The captured page carries no prices for any of the seven named modules, and we found no public pricing information at all. The only figure-adjacent tool is an ROI calculator that estimates savings, not an invoice, so every configuration is a sales conversation. 1
The GRC Consultant
We found no public prices of any kind — no edition, module, user or billing-period figures — so computing a real invoice from these pages is impossible. The only number-facing tool offered is an ROI calculator estimating hours saved and risk reduction, which is not a price. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
I found no public prices at all: seven modules are named and I found no figures for editions, user tiers, setup fees, or billing period. The only calculator on offer estimates hours saved and risk reduced, not what the invoice would be, so a real total is incomputable from these pages. 1
The Lead Auditor
We found no public prices anywhere in the capture — no edition, module, or per-user figures — and the ROI calculator estimates savings rather than invoice totals. On the public evidence alone, every configuration is a sales conversation. 1
The Evidence Integrator
No price appears anywhere; seven modules are named without figures, and the ROI calculator computes staff hours saved and estimated risk reduction, not an invoice. 1
The Skeptic
No price appears anywhere on the captured pages, and the only calculator offered is a savings/ROI tool, not a price list. We found no public information on edition pricing, module pricing, billing period or how consulting is unbundled from software. 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 | US by default ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 29 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. Applies to information collected via the Sites and Service; the approved-subprocessor table shows EU territories for some providers, but no EU hosting option for the platform itself is stated anywhere.
- 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.
- 26 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 data facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. 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 (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page hyperproof.io Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage hyperproof.io Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage hyperproof.io Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Subprocessor list — found from the homepage hyperproof.io Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap hyperproof.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap hyperproof.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap hyperproof.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap hyperproof.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap hyperproof.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap hyperproof.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap hyperproof.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap hyperproof.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap hyperproof.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap hyperproof.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →