Information Security
ibi systems iris
EU-Made 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 ibi systems GmbH · www.ibi-systems.de
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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored ibi systems iris, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
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 evidence confirms the category claim — iris is ISMS/GRC software with REST-API asset import from a CMDB — but says nothing about risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance, NIS2 24h/72h clocks, or risk acceptance with a named owner. For a product that wants to hold my risk register, that is checklist theater until proven otherwise. 2 3
The GRC Consultant
iris is a dedicated ISMS/GRC product with API-based asset import from a CMDB and mandant capability for parallel organizational units, but the evidence evidences nothing on risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance, or incident handling with NIS2 clocks — and the vendor's own product page not mentioning risk depth is itself information. I score to the anchor that matches what's evidenced, not what an ISMS tool presumably contains. 2 3
The Drafted IT Officer
iris is sold as full ISMS/GRC software and the API mentions CMDB asset import, but the evidence evidences nothing about a risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance, or incident workflows — I can't even confirm a risk register exists, let alone NIS2 clocks. That silence sits below the 'flat risk list and asset import' anchor. 1 2
The Lead Auditor
The product page evidences an ISMS/GRC tool with API-driven asset import from a CMDB and automated creation of Prüfungen, but not one fact about risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance, or incident handling with statutory clocks — and unevidenced means absent in my book. 2
The Evidence Integrator
An asset layer is proven by the API's CMDB import/export, but the evidence is silent on risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance and incident workflows — no NIS2 clocks, no risk acceptance shown. A dedicated ISMS product clears rubric level 0, but this is flat-list territory at best. 1 2
The Skeptic
The only asset evidence is a REST API that imports/exports assets from a CMDB; nothing in the evidence shows a risk methodology, treatment tracking, inheritance, or incident workflows — the ISMS core is asserted by product category, not evidenced. 2
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
Nothing on a statement of applicability, measure ownership, control-to-risk links, or internal audit workflows beyond a REST API mention of 'automatisierte Anlage von Prüfungen'. A SoA that cannot be generated from live control status is exactly the stale document I refuse to carry into surveillance audits, and the evidence gives me no reason to believe this one exists. 2
The GRC Consultant
Control content for ISO 27001/27002 and BSI IT-Grundschutz is confirmed, and the REST API can create Prüfungen automatically, which hints at a real audit/test module. But there is no evidence of SoA generation, measure ownership and delegation, or controls linked to risks — the control fabric looks operable at catalog level, not living-system level. 2
The Drafted IT Officer
ISO 27001/27002 and BSI IT-Grundschutz are named as supported, plus automated Prüfungen and report export, but there's not one word on SoA generation, measure ownership, findings management, or any control-to-risk link. Catalogs are implied by the framework list; whether the control side is operable or the consultant's spreadsheet is anyone's guess from this evidence. 2
The Lead Auditor
Supported standards (ISO 27001/27002, BSI IT-Grundschutz) imply catalog content exists, but the evidence is silent on SoA generation, measure ownership and due dates, control-risk linkage, and internal audit workflows — the control fabric is a black box on this evidence. 2
The Evidence Integrator
The only control-side evidence is that iris supports requirements from ISO 27001/27002 and BSI IT-Grundschutz plus programmatic creation of Prüfungen via the API. No SoA generation, no measure ownership, no control-risk linkage, no findings management — catalogs implied, operability unevidenced. 2
The Skeptic
"Unterstützt werden insbesondere Anforderungen aus ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 27002 sowie BSI IT-Grundschutz" is a support slogan, not a control system: no SoA generation, no measure ownership or due dates, no findings management appear anywhere. Automated Prüfungen via API is the thinnest possible nod toward internal audit. 2
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
The regime list is respectable for a German vendor — ISO 27001/27002, BSI IT-Grundschutz, BSI 200-4, ISO 22301, MaRisk, DSGVO/BDSG, plus NIS-2 and DORA — but it reads as a marketing enumeration with no evidence of one-control-many-frameworks mapping or a documented update cadence. Coverage without cross-mapping means I answer the same control twice per regime. 2
The GRC Consultant
The German-market set is genuinely there — ISO 27001/27002, IT-Grundschutz, BSI 200-4, ISO 22301, MaRisk, DSGVO/BDSG, plus named NIS-2 and DORA — which matches the 'major regimes for its market' anchor. What I need as a multi-client operator is one-control-many-frameworks mapping, and the evidence gives me zero evidence of cross-mapping, no TISAX, no SOC 2, no update cadence as regimes evolve. 2
The Drafted IT Officer
For the German market the list is genuinely broad — ISO 27001/27002, BSI IT-Grundschutz, BSI 200-4, plus NIS-2, DORA, MaRisk, ISO 22301, DSGVO/BDSG. But there's no cross-mapping claim anywhere, so the same control may need answering once per framework, and no visible maintenance cadence — exactly the anchor where regimes exist as content packs of varying depth. 2
The Lead Auditor
The German-market regimes are all named — ISO 27001/27002, Grundschutz, BSI 200-4, ISO 22301, MaRisk, plus NIS-2 and DORA — but there is zero evidence of one-control-many-frameworks mapping, no TISAX or SOC 2, and no visible update cadence, so each regime reads as its own content pack. 2
The Evidence Integrator
The German-market regime list is genuinely broad — ISO 27001/27002, IT-Grundschutz, BSI 200-4, ISO 22301, MaRisk, NIS-2, DORA, DSGVO/BDSG. But nothing evidences one-control-many-frameworks mapping or a maintenance cadence, and if each regime is a fresh island every control gets re-typed per framework — and typed evidence is stale evidence. 2
The Skeptic
The list — ISO 27001/27002, BSI IT-Grundschutz, BSI 200-4, ISO 22301, DSGVO, BDSG, MaRisk, NIS-2, DORA — covers the German market's regimes including NIS2 and DORA, but it is hedged with "wie z.B." and the evidence evidences no cross-framework mapping and no update cadence, so this reads as parallel checklists of unknown depth. 2
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
Report export to Word/PDF/Excel and filterable list exports exist, but there is no word on revision-safe history, evidence packs per scope, auditor roles, or a 'state on date X' answer. That is the anchor where reports exist and the trail is unreliable — assembling my audit file on this evidence would still be manual archaeology. 2
The GRC Consultant
Standard report generators (Word/PDF/Excel/E-Mail export), filterable configurable lists, and automated Prüfungen exist, which lifts it past 'PDFs exist'. But nothing on revision-safe change history, evidence packs, auditor roles, or a date-X answer; the vendor's own ISO 27001 certificate and C5 conformity describe the vendor, not the product's audit machinery. 2 3
The Drafted IT Officer
Reports export to Word/PDF/Excel and filterable lists to Excel/CSV, which is the anchor-3 picture: reports exist, but nothing evidences revision-safe history, evidence packs, or auditor access roles. Based on this sheet, assembling a defensible audit file would be guesswork. 2
The Lead Auditor
Report exports to Word/PDF/Excel/E-Mail and filterable CSV lists exist, but revision-safe change history, evidence packs per control, and auditor access roles are nowhere evidenced; the vendor's own ISO 27001 certificate and C5 attestation say nothing about the product's audit trail, and I reject assembling that story from the vendor's compliance posture. 2 3
The Evidence Integrator
Report and list exports in Word/PDF/Excel/CSV are the entire evidenced audit story. No revision-safe change history, no evidence packs, no auditor access roles, no 'state on date X' — the API can create Prüfungen automatically but nothing shows results collected or preserved automatically. 2
The Skeptic
Report export to Word/PDF/Excel/E-Mail and list export to Excel/CSV is the entire audit-output evidence; revision-safe history, evidence packs per control, auditor access roles and management reports are all absent from the evidence, which is exactly the anchor-3 profile — reports exist, trail unproven. 2
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
A documented REST API 'für die Anbindung beliebiger Drittsysteme' with concrete CMDB asset import and automated creation of Prüfungen is more than CSV round-tripping, and it is the strongest product capability on this sheet. But no directory import, no SSO/SCIM, no ticketing connectors, no automated evidence tests — so it feeds from the estate only where a customer builds the pipe themselves. 2
The GRC Consultant
A documented REST API for core objects — CMDB asset import/export, a request-portal integration, automated Prüfungen — plus Excel/CSV exchange and optional client certificates is real plumbing, better than CSV-only. Missing: directory/AD/Entra import, ticketing or scanner connectors, SSO/SCIM, webhooks, and any automated evidence testing — all unevidenced. 2
The Drafted IT Officer
A documented REST API with a concrete CMDB asset import/export example and automated creation of Prüfungen beats a closed island, no question. But no directory import, no named connectors (Jira, AD, ticketing), no SSO/SCIM or webhooks are evidenced, so it falls short of the five-anchor's connector set. 2
The Lead Auditor
A documented REST API for arbitrary third systems, with CMDB asset import/export and automated Prüfungen creation, is real plumbing and earns the mid anchor; but no directory/SSO/SCIM, no webhooks, no ticketing or scanner connectors, and no automated evidence tests with human review appear anywhere in the evidence. 2
The Evidence Integrator
One documented REST API for arbitrary third-party systems, with CMDB asset import/export and automated Prüfungen creation, keeps iris off the CSV-drawbridge list. But no directory import, no SSO/SCIM, no ticketing connectors, no webhooks, and above all no automated evidence tests or continuous control monitoring — a generic API, not a connector fabric feeding from the live estate. 2
The Skeptic
A documented REST API for "beliebige Drittsysteme" including CMDB asset import and automated creation of Prüfungen is more than a CSV island, but the connector set is claimed generically — no named ticketing/CMDB connectors, no directory sync, no SSO/SCIM, no webhooks, no automated evidence tests are evidenced. 2
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
German entity (HRB 13164, Regensburg), development exclusively in Germany, an on-premises option, an ECO 5-Star/ISO 27001-certified datacenter for SaaS, and a stated default of no third-country transfer — a solid base. It stays short of 8 because the datacenter location is never named, there is no public DPA or TOMs for the product itself, and Google/Microsoft Ireland subprocessors keep US-parent reach in the chain. 2 3 4 5
The GRC Consultant
Strongly German: GmbH registered in Regensburg with German court and VAT, development exclusively in Germany, SaaS in an ECO 5-Star/ISO 27001-certified datacenter plus a genuine on-premises option, default no third-country transfer, and a published subprocessor list of EU entities (Google Ireland, Microsoft Ireland, Personio). Docked from 8 because the datacenter is certified but not named, no DPA/TOMs publication is evidenced, and the Microsoft/Google Ireland entries carry residual US-parent reach. 2 4 5
The Drafted IT Officer
German GmbH with Regensburg register court, development exclusively in Germany, an on-premises option, and a default no-third-country-transfer statement — a decent picture. But the SaaS datacenter location isn't named, the published subprocessors include Google and Microsoft under US parent reach, and no public DPA or TOMs are evidenced, so it's a five rather than an eight. 2 4 5
The Lead Auditor
The imprint settles it: a German GmbH at Amtsgericht Regensburg, development exclusively in Germany, SaaS in an ECO 5-Star/ISO 27001-certified datacenter plus an on-prem option, and a stated default of no third-country transfer. But the data centers go unnamed, no public DPA/TOMs is evidenced, and the subprocessor list carries Google and Microsoft Ireland with the privacy policy itself admitting US transfer 'not excluded' for Bookings — that caps it below clean. 4 2 5
The Evidence Integrator
German GmbH with a Regensburg register entry, development exclusively in Germany, an on-prem option, and a stated default of no third-country transfer form a solid jurisdictional base. But the SaaS data center is unnamed, no product DPA/TOMs or product subprocessor list is published (the privacy policy covers only website services like Google Ireland and Microsoft Ireland, with US transfer not excluded for Bookings), and ownership is undocumented — short of rubric level 8. 2 3 4 5
The Skeptic
German GmbH (HRB 13164, Amtsgericht Regensburg), exclusively German development, an on-premises option and "keine Daten an ein Drittland" put this above the default floor — but the SaaS data center is never named, no product DPA/TOMs are published as evidenced, and Google Ireland/Microsoft Ireland sit on the subprocessor list with US transfer "not excluded", so the chain is not end-to-end clean. 2 3 4 5
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
The only published pricing fact is the dimension: named-user licensing where every active user gets the full feature scope, which at least rules out module games. No number anywhere, so the invoice for my 400 employees is unknowable without a sales conversation. 2
The GRC Consultant
The licensing structure is public — Named-User, every license carrying the full feature scope, SaaS or on-premises — which at least tells me module upselling isn't the model. But not a single price figure exists anywhere in the evidence, so the real invoice for a 100-employee certification client is purely a sales conversation; that's below even the 'entry price exists' anchor. 2
The Drafted IT Officer
At least the licensing model is stated plainly — Named-User, every license carrying the full feature scope, which suggests no module nickel-and-diming. But not a single price figure exists anywhere in the evidence, so the real invoice is a sales conversation — a 1, not a 0, only because the model itself is public. 2
The Lead Auditor
The only pricing fact published is the Named-User model where each license carries the full feature scope — useful structure, but not one euro figure, so the real invoice is a sales conversation. That is structure transparency without price transparency. 2
The Evidence Integrator
The license model is documented — named user, full feature scope, no module tiers — but not a single price is public, so no buyer can compute any invoice. Structure transparent, price opaque: barely off rubric level 0. 2
The Skeptic
The named-user model where each active license carries "stets den vollen Funktionsumfang" tells you the unit of billing — but not one price figure, scale step or setup fee is public, so the real invoice is computable only by sales call. 2
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 | Incorporated in DE | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 16 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 — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 5 pricing 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 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
- 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
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.ibi-systems.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 ISMS/GRC product page www.ibi-systems.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Company page www.ibi-systems.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Imprint www.ibi-systems.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy policy www.ibi-systems.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.ibi-systems.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.ibi-systems.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.ibi-systems.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.ibi-systems.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →