Information Security
LogicGate Risk Cloud
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by LogicGate, Inc. · www.logicgate.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
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.
LogicGate Risk Cloud at a glance
- Vendor
- LogicGate, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates LogicGate Risk Cloud 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. LogicGate Risk Cloud is an AI GRC platform with no-code configuration for governance, risk and compliance. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 3 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
LogicGate Risk Cloud is an AI GRC platform with no-code configuration for governance, risk and compliance. Evidence scoring is strongest on integrations and automation at 7-8 and on framework coverage, where scores cluster at 7: a documented REST API v2 with webhooks and an automated evidence collection endpoint, 267 catalogued integrations including Jira, Workday, AWS Security Hub and CrowdStrike, and 33 catalogued frameworks with predefined crosswalks that update automatically as UCF authority documents change. Sovereignty is the weakness at 1-2: the contracting entity is LogicGate, Inc. at 320 W Ohio St Suite 600W, Chicago, IL 60654, and the captured pages state nothing about hosting location, data residency, subprocessors or a data processing agreement. On controls work the judges spread 5-7: higher scores credit the UCF common-controls mapping and automated testing, lower ones the absence of public information on a generated statement of applicability and measure delegation. Information security management scores sit at 5-6, with no public information found on a risk methodology or NIS2 24h/72h reporting deadlines. Pricing appears only via a Request Pricing call.
Speaks for it
- A documented REST API v2 with webhooks, bulk record import, a Postman collection, an SFTP connector and an automated evidence collection endpoint that pushes evidence without granting access to internal systems
- 267 catalogued integrations including Jira, Workday, AWS Security Hub, CrowdStrike and BitSight, with no-cost native Jira, Slack and Microsoft 365 integrations
- Thirty-three frameworks in the catalog with predefined crosswalks across SOC 2, ISO 27001-2 and NIST CSF, updating automatically as UCF authority documents change
- Automated control testing with evidence requirements per control and dashboards for control audit status, evidence testing results, open issues and corrective actions
- An A-LIGN partnership maps external audit evidence requirements into the product, alongside an exportable audit log API
Held against it
- The contracting entity is a US company — LogicGate, Inc. at 320 W Ohio St Suite 600W, Chicago, IL 60654 — and the captured pages state nothing on hosting location, data residency, subprocessors or a data processing agreement, with sovereignty scored 1-2
- We found no public information on single sign-on or SCIM provisioning, which judges flagged ahead of a company-wide rollout
- We found no public information on a generated statement of applicability, on measure delegation and escalation, or on read-only auditor access and reproducing a record as it stood on a given date
- We found no public information on NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz coverage, and the frameworks page notes that framework licences are not included with the platform
- The captured pages give different figures for framework support (over 25, over 30, and 33 listed in the catalog) and integration totals (200-plus on the homepage against 267 in the integrations directory), and one page still describes Spark AI control testing in future tense for January 2026
Best for
- You run compliance against multiple frameworks such as SOC 2, ISO 27001-2 and NIST CSF and want predefined crosswalks with automatic framework updates as authority documents change
- Your risk and control evidence lives in systems like Jira, Workday, AWS Security Hub or CrowdStrike and you want it collected automatically through a documented API instead of manual exports
- You hold an active UCF account with API access and want common controls mapped onto internal controls to answer each control once
- You need an audit evidence pipeline — audit log export, automated evidence collection and A-LIGN-mapped audit requirements — feeding continuously updated executive reporting
Avoid if
- You require a non-US contracting entity or documented data residency — the captured pages prove a Chicago, Illinois entity, state nothing on hosting, residency, subprocessors or a data processing agreement, and list OpenAI among named integrations without stating what data it processes
- Your certification audit will demand a generated statement of applicability with measure delegation and escalation — we found no public information on these
- You need NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz among the supported frameworks — we found no public information on these regimes
- You require documented single sign-on with SCIM provisioning before rollout — we found no public information on it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Asset & risk management depth | 2.5 of 5 |
| Controls, SoA & measures | 3 of 5 |
| Framework & standard coverage | 3.5 of 5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 3 of 5 |
| Integrations & automation | 4 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
Asset & risk management depth
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The ISMS core: asset inventory, risk methodology (identification, assessment, treatment), inheritance of protection needs (Schutzbedarf) across assets, and security incident handling with its reporting deadlines.
0 — Not an ISMS tool; the product has no asset or risk management.
3 — A risk register with likelihood and impact, and an asset list that can be imported.
5 — Asset inventory and risk management with a configurable risk matrix, risk treatment with owners and measures, and a register for security incidents.
8 — A documented risk methodology (ISO 27005, BSI 200-3 or equivalent), protection needs inherited across asset relations, incident workflows with the NIS2 reporting deadlines (24h/72h), and risk acceptance with named owners.
10 — Risk management a certifier works inside: the complete asset-risk-treatment chain with inheritance, business continuity planning (BIA, ISO 22301 or BSI 200-4), incident reporting with export for the authority, and risk reporting for the executive level.
The CISO
Customizable risk registers, automated assessment and mitigation workflows, and a connected view of assets, risks and controls with KRIs and continuous monitoring are documented. I found no public information on a documented risk methodology, protection-need inheritance across asset relations, NIS2 24h/72h incident clocks, or risk acceptance with named owners — incident handling appears only as routing via integration workflows. 1 2 3
The GRC Consultant
Customizable risk registers, automated assessment and mitigation workflows, a connected view of assets, risks and controls, KRI tracking, incident routing and financial quantification via Risk Cloud Quantify are all documented. We found no public information on a documented risk methodology, protection-need inheritance across asset relations, or NIS2-style incident reporting deadlines and business continuity, so it settles mid-scale. 1 2 3
The Drafted IT Officer
The cyber and enterprise risk pages show customizable risk registers, automated risk assessment and mitigation workflows, key risk indicators, and a connected view of assets, risks and controls, which reaches a working register-and-treatment level. We found no public information on a documented risk methodology, protection-needs inheritance across assets, or NIS2-style reporting deadlines, so I would still be hand-building the parts my auditor asks about first. 1 2 3
The Lead Auditor
The captured pages show a connected asset-risk-control model — a no-code graph database linking controls, assets and risks with multi-hop views — plus customizable risk registers, automated assessment and mitigation workflows, KRIs, financial quantification, and incident routing. We found no public information on a documented risk methodology, protection-need inheritance across asset relations, NIS2 reporting deadlines, or risk acceptance with named owners, which is what separates a working register from a certifiable ISMS core. 1 2 3
The Evidence Integrator
Risk registers, automated assessment and mitigation workflows, KRI monitoring and a connected view of assets, risks and controls are all documented, with a no-code graph database linking the three — this is risk management fed by workflows, not a typed-in register. The captured pages show no documented risk methodology, no inheritance of protection needs across asset relations, and nothing on NIS2's 24h/72h reporting deadlines, so the depth beyond a solid register-plus-treatment setup stays undocumented. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
The risk pages document customizable risk registers, automated risk assessment and mitigation workflows, KRI monitoring, financial quantification of impacts, and a connected graph view of assets, risks and controls, with incident handling appearing as automated routing and tracking. We found no public information on a documented risk methodology, protection-need inheritance across asset relations, or NIS2 24h/72h reporting deadlines, so the evidence stops short of the top band. 1 2 3
Controls, SoA & measures
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Control catalogues, the statement of applicability, measure tracking and internal audit — whether the control side of the ISMS is operable or a checklist.
0 — No control catalogue or measures in the product.
3 — Control catalogues (such as ISO 27001 Annex A) with an implementation status per control.
5 — Controls linked to risks and to measures with owners and due dates, a statement of applicability generated from the control status, and internal audits supported with checklists.
8 — A statement of applicability always current from live control status, measure tracking with delegation and escalation, internal audit workflows with findings and corrective actions, and evidence attached to each control.
10 — The control fabric as a living system: catalogue updates versioned, audit programmes with recurring schedules, and every control answerable with linked, current evidence at any moment — all documented.
The CISO
Continuous control testing with notifications, corrective-action and evidence-testing dashboards, and UCF-generated control records give the control side real teeth. I found no public information on a statement of applicability generated or kept current from live control status, or on measure delegation and escalation. 1 4 5 7
The GRC Consultant
The common-controls approach is exactly the reusable control fabric I build with: UCF common controls mapped to internal controls to answer each control once, automated control testing with evidence requirements per control, and dashboards tracking control audit status, open issues and corrective actions. We found no public information on a generated statement of applicability, delegation and escalation on measures, or recurring internal audit programmes, which holds it just short of the highest level. 4 5 7
The Drafted IT Officer
Control tracking is real: automated control testing with notifications, dashboards for control audit status, evidence testing results and corrective actions, and mapping of UCF common controls to internal controls. We found no public information on a generated statement of applicability or on measure tracking with delegation and escalation, which is what an ISO 27001 audit will demand from me. 1 4 5 7
The Lead Auditor
Controls are linked to risks through predefined crosswalks and the graph model, evidence is collected and automatically tested against each control, corrective actions sit on pre-built dashboards, and UCF common controls map onto internal controls to avoid redundant evaluation. We found no public information on a statement of applicability generated from live control status, nor on measure delegation and escalation — so this is an operable control layer, not yet the living control fabric I certify against. 1 4 5 7
The Evidence Integrator
Controls link to risks through the graph database, carry citations and authority documentation from UCF, and are tested continuously — automated control testing with Spark AI from January 2026 — with dashboards for control audit status, evidence testing results and corrective actions. Evidence is attached per control and collected automatically, which is how a control fabric should live. We found no public information on a statement of applicability generated from live control status, or on delegation and escalation in measure tracking. 1 4 5 7
The Skeptic
Control records with citations, mapping of Unified Compliance Framework common controls onto internal controls, automated control testing with issue notifications, and dashboards for control audit status, evidence testing results and corrective actions are all documented. We found no public information on a statement of applicability or on measure delegation and escalation, and one captured page still describes Spark AI control testing in future tense for January 2026, which a buyer should confirm has shipped. 4 5 7
Framework & standard coverage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which regimes the product operationalises — 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 — No security framework built in; a generic task or document tool.
3 — One recognised framework (typically ISO 27001) delivered with its requirements and controls.
5 — Several named frameworks for its market (for example ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX or BSI IT-Grundschutz), with controls mapped across at least two of them.
8 — Broad current coverage including NIS2, TISAX and DORA where relevant, one control satisfying many frameworks through a documented mapping, and updates published when a standard changes.
10 — Framework coverage as a living product: dozens of regimes, multi-compliance on one data basis, per-industry profiles, and a documented update cadence when the standard moves.
The CISO
The mapping story is strong: UCF common controls mapped to internal controls to avoid redundant evaluations, crosswalks across SOC 2, ISO 27001 and NIST CSF, and automatic framework updates as authority documents change. The catalogue shows 33 frameworks, but among those named I found no NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz — the regimes my certificate and NIS2 exposure run on. 4 6 7
The GRC Consultant
Thirty-plus frameworks with built-in crosswalks and automatic import and mapping of new requirements as UCF authority documents change is genuinely living multi-compliance; the captured pages give different figures for the framework count (over 25, over 30, and 33 listed). We found no public information on NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz among the named frameworks, and the frameworks page states framework licenses are not included with the platform. 4 6 7
The Drafted IT Officer
Cross-mapping is documented and strong: predefined crosswalks across frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001 and NIST CSF, and control frameworks that update automatically as the underlying standards change. The pages give different figures for how many frameworks are supported — more than 25 on one, more than 30 on another, 33 listed in the catalog — and the named catalog is US-weighted (CCPA, HIPAA, PCI DSS, CMMC, NIST 800-53); we found no public information on NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz. 4 6 7
The Lead Auditor
Thirty-plus security and privacy frameworks are claimed with a catalog of 33, cross-mapping via predefined crosswalks, and automatic import and updating of requirements as UCF Authority Documents change — though only twelve of the 33 are named on the captured pages and framework licensing sits outside the platform. We found no public information on NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz, the regimes a European certification project starts from. 4 6 7
The Evidence Integrator
Thirty-three frameworks are catalogued with predefined crosswalks (SOC 2, ISO 27001, NIST CSF) and UCF common controls mapped onto internal controls so one control answers many regimes; new requirements are imported and re-mapped automatically as authority documents change — a documented update path. The catalogue leans to the US market (HIPAA, PCI DSS, CMMC, NIST 800-53); we found no public information on NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz, and the pages note the framework licence is not included with the platform. 4 6 7
The Skeptic
Thirty-three frameworks are listed by name including ISO 27001-2, SOC 2, NIST CSF, GDPR, PCI DSS, HIPAA and CMMC, with predefined crosswalks and automatic import and mapping of new requirements and controls from the Unified Compliance Framework as authority documents change. The captured pages give different figures for the framework total (over 25, over 30, and 33 in the catalog), the catalog notes that framework licences are not included with the platform, and we found no public information on NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz coverage. 4 5 6 7
Audit readiness & evidence
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the system produces defensible proof: change history, evidence collection, and reports for auditors, authorities and management.
0 — No reports, history or evidence; the product only stores the current state.
3 — PDF or Word reports of risks and controls, and documents attachable to records.
5 — Versioned records or a change history, standard report generators (SoA, risk report, management report), and evidence attached per control.
8 — A revision-safe change history, audit evidence packs generated on demand, management reports at a click, and read-only auditor access.
10 — Audit readiness as a standing state: evidence status shown continuously per framework and scope, proof packs an external auditor accepts as they are, and any record reproducible as it stood on a given date.
The CISO
An exportable audit log, an API to push evidence onto records, control-audit-status and evidence-testing dashboards, rapid executive reporting, and an audit firm (A-LIGN) mapping its evidence requirements directly into the product are documented. I found no public information on read-only auditor access or on reproducing any record as it stood on a given date. 4 5 8 9
The GRC Consultant
An audit log export API, an automated evidence collection endpoint, continuously updated centralized reporting with executive dashboards and AI-generated summaries, plus the A-LIGN partnership mapping external audit evidence requirements into the product, give real audit posture. We found no public information on read-only auditor access, evidence packs generated on demand, or reproducing a record as it stood on a given date. 4 8 9
The Drafted IT Officer
There is a documented audit log export, an API endpoint to push evidence files into the platform, role-based dashboards with AI-generated executive summaries, and an A-LIGN partnership mapping audit evidence requirements directly into the product. We found no public information on read-only auditor access or evidence packs generated on demand, so handing an auditor their view looks like account juggling rather than a clean export. 4 5 8 9
The Lead Auditor
An audit log with its own export endpoint, an Automated Evidence Collection API pushing evidence into records, an A-LIGN partnership mapping audit evidence requirements into the product, and executive reporting with AI-generated summaries give genuine audit support. We found no public information on evidence packs generated on demand, read-only auditor access, or reproducing any record as it stood on a given date — the tests I apply when someone says show me the state on date X. 3 4 5 8 9
The Evidence Integrator
There is an audit log export in the API, an automated evidence collection endpoint that pushes evidence files without granting access to internal systems, A-LIGN's audit evidence requirements mapped into the product, and continuously updated executive reporting with AI-generated summaries. That is a working evidence pipeline rather than a folder of screenshots. We found no public information on read-only auditor access, evidence packs generated on demand, or reproducing a record as it stood on a given date. 4 5 8 9
The Skeptic
An audit log export API, an automated evidence collection endpoint that pushes evidence without exposing internal systems, continuously updated executive reporting with AI-generated summaries, and an A-LIGN partnership mapping audit evidence requirements into the platform are documented. We found no public information on read-only auditor access or on reproducing any record as it stood on a given date; the 98 percent drop in audit findings and 80 percent faster audit completion are vendor case-study figures a buyer should ask to see sourced. 4 8 9
Integrations & automation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the platform feeds from the real IT estate — directory import, CMDB, ticketing, scanners, SSO, API — and automates evidence collection instead of re-typing it.
0 — No import, export or integration; data is typed in and printed out.
3 — CSV or Excel import and export, and reminders for recurring reviews.
5 — Single sign-on, a documented API or a few named connectors (directory, ticketing or CMDB), and recurring tasks with reminders and assignment.
8 — A documented REST API for the core objects, a named connector set (Jira/ServiceNow-class ticketing, CMDB, cloud and endpoint sources), webhooks, SSO with SCIM provisioning, and automated evidence tests with human review.
10 — The platform behaves like infrastructure: API coverage of the whole data model, events or webhooks for every object, continuous control monitoring against the live estate, and recurring evidence collection automated and documented.
The CISO
267 listed integrations, a documented REST API v2 with webhooks and bulk record import, an automated evidence-collection endpoint, native no-cost Jira/Slack/Microsoft 365 connectors, SFTP, and pre-built evidence sources for HR and cloud security — the platform feeds from the real estate. I found no public information on single sign-on with SCIM provisioning, and API coverage of the entire data model is not claimed. 1 8 10 11
The GRC Consultant
A documented REST API (v2) covering workflows, fields, records and evidence, webhooks, a Postman collection, an SFTP connector, 267 listed integrations with named connectors for Jira, CrowdStrike, AWS Security Hub and Workday, and pre-built evidence sources for HR and cloud security — this is the estate-feeding automation layer I want, with automated first-pass evidence testing and humans in the loop as final approvers. We found no public information on single sign-on or SCIM provisioning, the one element missing at the top. 8 10 11
The Drafted IT Officer
This is the strongest part: a documented REST API with webhooks, bulk import and an automated evidence collection endpoint, 267 listed connectors including Jira, Workday, AWS Security Hub and CrowdStrike, no-cost native Jira, Slack and Microsoft 365 integrations, and automated control testing with humans as final approvers. We found no public information on single sign-on with SCIM provisioning, which I would need before rolling a tool like this out company-wide. 1 8 10 11
The Lead Auditor
The strongest area: a documented REST API with published endpoints for workflows, fields, bulk record import, evidence upload and audit log export, webhooks, a Postman collection, an MCP server, and 267 catalogued integrations including Jira, Workday, AWS and CrowdStrike, with no-code native integrations at no cost. Automated evidence collection and control testing run continuously with humans as final approvers; we found no public information on single sign-on with SCIM provisioning. 1 8 10 11
The Evidence Integrator
This is the platform at its best: a documented REST API v2 over workflows, fields, records and evidence, webhooks, bulk import, an SFTP connector, an MCP server, and 267 listed connectors spanning Jira, Workday, AWS Security Hub and CrowdStrike, with evidence sources pulling from HR systems and cloud security services and automated control testing with humans as final approvers. Risk data flows automatically from 200+ tools instead of manual exports — the opposite of a CSV drawbridge. We found no public information on single sign-on or SCIM provisioning, the one leg of the connector story these pages do not document. 1 5 8 10 11
The Skeptic
A documented REST API spans core objects — workflows, field values, bulk record import, evidence upload and audit log export — alongside webhooks, a Postman collection, an SFTP connector, an MCP server and pre-built evidence sources for HR and cloud-security systems, with named connectors including Jira, Workday, AWS Security Hub, CrowdStrike and BitSight. The captured pages give different totals for the catalog (200-plus on the homepage against 267 in the integrations directory), and we found no public information on single sign-on or SCIM provisioning. 1 8 10 11
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: contracting entity and parent company, hosting location, subprocessors (hosting, AI features, email, support tooling), DPA. The risk register is itself a target. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; describe what is proven, and treat what is not stated as unknown rather than non-EU.
0 — Proven non-EU end to end: non-EU entity and non-EU hosting with no EU option, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist; hosting location and subprocessors are not stated, or EU hosting is offered only on request or on top tiers.
5 — EU hosting stated as the default, a data processing agreement and a subprocessor list published; a parent company or a subprocessor may sit outside the EU.
8 — EU entity, EU hosting in named data centres, a subprocessor list with no non-EU processor touching customer content, and the DPA and TOMs published.
10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors, an on-premises or sovereign-cloud option, and the whole chain documented publicly.
The CISO
The captured pages place LogicGate, Inc. at a Chicago address, so the contracting entity sits outside the EU. Hosting location, data processing agreement, subprocessors and data residency are not stated in anything I read, and my risk register would itself be the data at stake. 1 5 8
The GRC Consultant
The contracting entity is proven US-based — LogicGate, Inc. at a Chicago, Illinois address — so the risk register itself sits with an American vendor. Hosting location, subprocessors and a data processing agreement are not stated in the captured pages, so the chain beyond the entity is unknown rather than proven European. 1 5 10
The Drafted IT Officer
What is proven: the contracting entity is LogicGate, Inc. at 320 W Ohio Street, Chicago, Illinois, and customer instances run on the vendor's own logicgate.com subdomains. Beyond that we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors or a data processing agreement, so the whole risk register would sit with a US vendor and the rest of the chain is unknown to me. 5 8 10
The Lead Auditor
The contracting entity is confirmed as LogicGate, Inc. with headquarters at a Chicago address, so the entity dimension of the chain sits under US jurisdiction. We found no public information on hosting location, an EU hosting option, subprocessors, or a data processing agreement, so the remaining dimensions are unknown rather than European or otherwise. 1 10
The Evidence Integrator
The contracting entity is documented as LogicGate, Inc. at a Chicago address, with customer instances hosted on vendor subdomains. The captured pages give no statement of hosting location, data processing agreement or subprocessors, so those dimensions remain unknown rather than European or otherwise. 1 8 10
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is proven as LogicGate, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois — a US company — and customer instances run on vendor subdomains, while the captured pages state nothing about hosting location, data residency, a data processing agreement or subprocessors, leaving every dimension beyond the entity unknown. OpenAI appears among the named integrations, though the pages do not state what data it processes. 1 3 8 10
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 — A public "from" price or one priced edition; the other editions, modules or scale steps are not public.
5 — Public prices per edition or tier with the billing period (monthly or annual) stated and the main inclusions listed.
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly with entity/user boundaries and setup fees stated, software separated from consulting, and VAT treatment given; 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 route to a price is a "Request Pricing" call and no figures are stated anywhere. Scope boundaries are documented — two Power User licenses with unlimited users included at no extra cost, framework content marked "License not included with platform", and 20 integration service hours for the UCF connector — but no buyer can compute an invoice from what is public. 1 2 6 7
The GRC Consultant
Pricing is available only through a Request Pricing call to action, with no prices stated on the captured pages, so every invoice is a sales conversation. The pages do disclose the license structure — two Power User licenses with unlimited user licenses included at no extra cost — and implementation effort in hours for the UCF connector, but no monetary figures anywhere captured. 1 2 7
The Drafted IT Officer
The captured pages state that pricing is only available via a "Request Pricing" request, with no prices shown. The licensing model is described — two Power User licenses with unlimited other users at no extra cost — and the UCF connector is quoted at 20 integration service hours, but we found no public prices I could compute an invoice or budget from. 1 2 7
The Lead Auditor
Every price sits behind a Request Pricing call to action and no figures are stated on any captured page. Public material does describe the licensing structure — unlimited users with two Power User licenses per subscription, and twenty integration service hours for the Unified Compliance Framework connector — but without prices a buyer cannot compute any invoice. 1 2 7
The Evidence Integrator
We found no public prices — pricing is available only through a Request Pricing call, so every configuration is a sales conversation. The pages do publish some licence structure (two Power User licences, unlimited user licences included with every subscription at no extra cost) and state 20 integration service hours for the UCF connector, but no figure a buyer could compute an invoice from. 1 2 7
The Skeptic
The only pricing route on the captured pages is a 'Request Pricing' call, and we found no public amounts, editions or billing periods. Licensing structure is partly disclosed — two Power User licences with unlimited users included per subscription, and 20 integration service hours for the Unified Compliance Framework connector — but without figures the real invoice is not computable from public pages. 1 2 7
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about LogicGate Risk Cloud
Is LogicGate Risk Cloud European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where LogicGate Risk Cloud is based.
Where does LogicGate Risk Cloud store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does LogicGate Risk Cloud have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to LogicGate Risk Cloud?
As of 3 Nov 2026, the panel rates preeco | informationssicherheit (3.5/5), Secfix (3.5/5) and 6clicks (3.5/5) highest among the other 29 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: LogicGate Risk Cloud alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- 1 compliance 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 product 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
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.logicgate.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →