Information Security

ISMS.online

UK / wider Europe Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The CISO v1.0 · The GRC Consultant v1.0 · The Drafted IT Officer v1.1 · The Lead Auditor v1.0 · The Evidence Integrator v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.1 · rubric v1 · evaluated 16 Sep 2026

Compare with verinice → 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 GRC Consultant

Weighted verdict

Builds and runs ISMSs for a dozen clients at once. Optimizes for reusable control catalogs, multi-framework mapping that answers a control once, and templates that make client twelve cheaper than client one. Rejects single-tenant tools and frameworks bolted on as checklists.

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

Scored by The GRC Consultant

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 GRC Consultant

There is a 'Dynamic Risk Register & Treatment' and a claim of automated risk assessments, so treatment tracking exists — above the flat-list floor. But the evidence shows no asset inventory, no risk methodology, no protection-needs inheritance, and no incident workflows with statutory clocks; NIS2 appears only as a domain label, and the quoted 24-hour breach target is ISMS.online's own privacy-policy promise about their handling, not a product feature. 2 4 5 1

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 GRC Consultant

Pre-configured control templates with owner assignment, review reminders, version history and approval workflow, plus the claim that updating a risk, policy or evidence ripples across the platform, gives me measures with owners and a live linkage story. Missing for a five or an eight: no SoA generation anywhere in the evidence, no internal audit or findings workflows, and no evidence that controls carry their own evidence. 2 5 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 GRC Consultant

100+ frameworks including ISO 27001, ISO 27701, ISO 42001, SOC 2, GDPR, NIS2 and the EU AI Act is real breadth, and ISO 27001:2022 is the current version on their framework page. But 'automatic mapping to standards' attaches to policies, not to a one-control-many-frameworks answer, and TISAX, DORA and BSI IT-Grundschutz are absent — I can't credit the cross-compliance mapping that makes client twelve cheaper than client one. 2 5 1

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 GRC Consultant

Version history with approval workflow and evidence as first-class objects that ripple on change are a start, and the 'audit readiness' and 100% first-time-pass claims are marketing, not proof. No report generators, no audit-scoped evidence packs, no auditor access roles, no 'state on date X' — assembling the audit file still looks like days of manual work. 5 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 GRC Consultant

ServiceNow plus SharePoint, Teams and Google Drive with a Public API and custom integrations clears the connector floor — except the Google Drive connector is explicitly a file picker and link, never touching the file, which tells me these are link-level, not data-sync. No directory import, no SSO/SCIM, no CMDB, no automated evidence collection; 'automates compliance tasks' reads as workflow reminders dressed up. 2 3 4 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 GRC Consultant

UK entity (Alliantist Ltd, England & Wales) with an EU data-centre option of Germany plus Sweden backup and a published subprocessor list keeps this off the floor. But that list is heavy with US-reach processors (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, AWS), there are no named data centres beyond country level, no DPA or TOMs in evidence, and the jurisdiction is post-Brexit UK with US transfer mechanisms — not the European-clean chain I want under a risk register. 2 3 4

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 GRC Consultant

Bespoke pricing with no published seat or tier prices, every quote tailored via sales contact, and the buying path is a 30-minute demo — the anchor's exact definition of zero. You cannot compute any part of the real invoice from public pages. 2 1

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

3 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.

Legal entity	Incorporated in GB ⚠ unverified	1/3 pts	4 Report an error
Ownership	Not determined	—	uncited Report an error
Data residency	EU optional ⚠ unverified	1/3 pts	4 Report an error
Subprocessors	US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified	0/2 pts	4 Report an error

Where this could be wrong

Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 11 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 — Legal entity. Alliantist is registered in the United Kingdom, which is outside the EU since Brexit.
Weak sourcing — Data residency. The notice lists UK, EU, APAC and US data centres for different customers without stating which region is the default assignment, so EU hosting is one choice among several.
Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The list is scoped to Alliantist's role as Data Controller and mixes marketing tools with service providers, so which of these US-headquartered firms process customer data inside the product is not separated out; the product hosting itself is only described as 'a third-party data centre' and AWS is noted as 'UK and Ireland'.
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.

41 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
9 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
6 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 support 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 integrations 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
4 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
3 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
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

Do you know more about ISMS.online? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (16)

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

1 Vendor homepage www.isms.online Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 11 Sep 2026 Details →
2 Vendor pricing page www.isms.online Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
3 Platform features page www.isms.online Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
4 Privacy policy www.isms.online Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
5 ISO 27001 framework page www.isms.online Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
6 Privacy policy www.isms.online Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
7 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap support.isms.online Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
8 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.isms.online Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
9 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.isms.online Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
10 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.isms.online Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
11 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.isms.online Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
12 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.isms.online Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
13 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.isms.online Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
14 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.isms.online Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
15 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.isms.online Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
16 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.isms.online Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →