whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Information Security

LogicGate Risk Cloud

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

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

by LogicGate, Inc. · www.logicgate.com

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

Link to this page

LogicGate Risk Cloud: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai LogicGate Risk Cloud: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

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

LogicGate Risk Cloud alternatives, European ones first →

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

Panel median The GRC Consultant This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The GRC Consultant
Asset & risk management depth 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
Controls, SoA & measures 3 of 5 3.5 of 5
Framework & standard coverage 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Audit readiness & evidence 3 of 5 3.5 of 5
Integrations & automation 4 of 5 4 of 5
European sovereignty 1 of 5 1 of 5

Asset & risk management depth

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Controls, SoA & measures

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Framework & standard coverage

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Audit readiness & evidence

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Integrations & automation

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

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 — 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 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.

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

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about LogicGate Risk Cloud? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (11)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.logicgate.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.logicgate.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →