Information Security
LogicManager
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 6 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by LogicManager, Inc. · www.logicmanager.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.
LogicManager at a glance
- Vendor
- LogicManager, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Incorporated in United States source, captured 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 LogicManager 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. LogicManager is a SaaS enterprise risk management platform whose strength is connection: a taxonomy holds risks, assets, vendors, policies, controls and incidents in one repository and surfaces cascading effects, and information security management scores run 5-6. 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
LogicManager is a SaaS enterprise risk management platform whose strength is connection: a taxonomy holds risks, assets, vendors, policies, controls and incidents in one repository and surfaces cascading effects, and information security management scores run 5-6. Integrations and automation drew the bench's best scores, 5-7, on prebuilt vendor-maintained connectors, SCIM and Entra ID provisioning with separation-of-duties enforcement, DocuSign, and drag-and-drop field mapping without IT. Reporting for board, regulatory and internal audiences from one source of truth keeps audit readiness at 4, though we found no public information on revision-safe change history or read-only auditor access; controls and statement of applicability also sit at 4, which judges read as linked repositories rather than an operable statement of applicability. Framework coverage is the genuine split, 2 to 5: higher scores credit the Risk Maturity Model umbrella over COSO, ISO, NIST and OCEG, while the low end sees alignment claims without delivered catalogues and SOC 2 only as an on-demand advisory workshop. Sovereignty and pricing transparency are the weakest categories, at 1-2 and 0-2; no price figures appear on the captured pages.
Speaks for it
- A taxonomy links risks to controls, assets, vendors, policies and people in one repository, with cascading effects surfaced — information security management scores run 5-6.
- Integrations and automation scores run 5-7, the bench's highest, on vendor-maintained prebuilt connectors with direct-to-production setup, SCIM and Entra ID provisioning with separation-of-duties enforcement, and DocuSign.
- Reporting is configurable for board, regulatory and internal audiences from one source of truth, with built-in dashboards, heatmaps and key-risk-indicator tolerance tracking.
- Environment access arrives within 5 business days, with implementation, training and maintenance included and a dedicated advisory analyst available through the subscription lifetime.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores run 1-2: a Boston, USA global headquarters stated on a marketing page is the only sovereignty fact, and we found no public information on hosting location, data residency, subprocessors or a data processing agreement.
- Controls and statement of applicability scores sit at 4, and we found no public information on a statement of applicability generated from control status, per-control implementation status, or evidence attached to controls.
- Framework coverage splits 2-5: standards appear as alignments under the Risk Maturity Model and SOC 2 as an on-demand advisory workshop, with no public information on NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz coverage.
- Audit readiness stops at 4: we found no public information on revision-safe change history, on-demand evidence packs or read-only auditor access.
- Pricing transparency scores run 0-2 because no price figures appear on the captured pages, so any invoice comes out of a sales conversation behind a free demonstration.
Best for
- You want one connected risk register across business units, with risks tied to the controls, resources, processes and people they impact.
- Your small or one-person team wants vendor-maintained connectors and drag-and-drop field mapping rather than in-house integration work.
- You need board- and regulator-facing reporting with dashboards, heatmaps and key-risk-indicator tracking from a single source of truth.
- You value hands-on onboarding: implementation, training and maintenance included, environment access within 5 business days, and an advisory analyst for the subscription lifetime.
Avoid if
- You must evidence European regimes such as NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your certification or recertification depends on a statement of applicability and per-control evidence — the controls category sits at 4 across the scores with neither shown.
- Your procurement requires documented data residency, hosting options or a data processing agreement — sovereignty scores run 1-2 and the only stated fact is a Boston, USA global headquarters.
- You expect integrations to drive automated evidence collection and self-running control checks against the live estate — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Asset & risk management depth | 2.5 of 5 |
| Controls, SoA & measures | 2 of 5 |
| Framework & standard coverage | 2 of 5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations & automation | 3 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
The taxonomy genuinely links risks to controls, resources and processes, incidents are first-class objects that get remediated and tied to policies, and assessments run on numeric scales with built-in risk matrices — more than a flat register. But I found no public information on a documented risk methodology, protection needs inherited across asset relations, risk acceptance with named owners, or the 24-hour and 72-hour NIS2 reporting clocks, which is what my certificate and regulator exposure actually turn on. 2 5 1
The GRC Consultant
The taxonomy engine is the strong point: risks, assets, vendors, policies, controls and incidents sit in one linked repository, risks connect to the resources, processes and people they impact, cascading effects are surfaced, and risk matrices and heatmaps are built in. What holds it here is what the pages do not show — a named risk methodology such as ISO 27005 or BSI 200-3, protection needs inherited across asset relations, and incident workflows with the NIS2 24-hour and 72-hour reporting deadlines. 2 5 1
The Drafted IT Officer
Risks, assets and controls sit in one repository with a pre-built risk library, standardized numeric assessment criteria, built-in heatmaps and risk matrices, mitigation repositories and incident remediation — that covers identification, assessment, treatment and an incident register. I found no public information on a documented methodology like ISO 27005, protection-need inheritance across asset relations, or the 24/72-hour NIS2 reporting deadlines, so I can't take it higher. 2 5 1
The Lead Auditor
The taxonomy pages document a genuine risk core: risks, assets, vendors, policies, controls and incidents held in one repository, numeric-scale assessments with heatmaps and risk matrices, mitigation activities connected to the resources they impact, incident remediation, and a Business Continuity module. We found no public information on a named risk methodology, inheritance of protection needs across asset relations, incident reporting deadlines, or risk acceptance with named owners, so the evidence reaches a solid mid-level risk register, not a certifiable chain. 1 2 5
The Evidence Integrator
Risks, assets, vendors, policies, controls and incidents sit in one repository, with pre-built risk libraries, numeric-scale assessments, built-in risk matrices and heatmaps, taxonomy links from each risk to the controls, resources, processes and people it impacts, and Risk Ripple Intelligence surfacing cascading effects across those relations. Incident remediation and a Business Continuity solution module are named. The captured pages stop short of a documented risk methodology such as ISO 27005 or BSI 200-3, protection-needs inheritance in the German sense, or the NIS2 24h/72h reporting deadlines, so I score it above a basic register but well below the certifier grade. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
Risk libraries, numeric-scale assessments, matrices and heatmaps, mitigation repositories and incident remediation are documented, and the taxonomy genuinely links risks to controls, assets, processes and people. We found no public information on a named risk methodology, protection-need inheritance across assets, NIS2-style reporting deadlines, or risk acceptance with named owners. 2 3 5
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
Mitigation activities, controls and procedures are real objects connected to the risks and requirements they impact through the taxonomy, and an Internal Audit module is on the solution list. We found no public information on a control catalogue with implementation status per control, a statement of applicability generated from live status, owners and due dates on measures, or evidence attached to each control — the applicability side is unproven, and a stale one is what kills recertification. 2 1 5
The GRC Consultant
Mitigation activities, controls and procedures sit in repositories connected to risks and to the requirements they impact, and an Internal Audit solution package exists by name — but we found no public information on a statement of applicability generated from control status, per-control implementation status, owners and due dates on measures, or evidence attached to controls. The control side reads as linked repositories rather than an operable statement of applicability I could hand an auditor. 2 1 5
The Drafted IT Officer
Controls are linked to risks and to mitigation activities through the taxonomy, with testing and metric collection to confirm they work, and an internal audit module is listed among the solution packages. I found no public information on a statement of applicability, per-control implementation status, owners and due dates on measures, or evidence attached to controls, so this sits between a checklist and a fully operable control side. 2 1 5
The Lead Auditor
Controls and mitigation activities live in repositories and are linked through the taxonomy to risks, resources and requirements, with testing and metric collection to check effectiveness. We found no public information on a statement of applicability generated from control status, owners and due dates on measures, evidence attached per control, or internal audit checklists and corrective-action workflows; an Internal Audit module is merely listed. 2 5 1
The Evidence Integrator
Repositories of mitigation activities, controls and procedures are linked through the taxonomy to the risks and requirements they impact, with testing and metric collection to check control effectiveness and an Internal Audit solution module on the list. We found no public information on a delivered control catalogue such as ISO 27001 Annex A, on a statement of applicability generated from control status, or on evidence attached per control — the marks of an operable control fabric rather than linked lists. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
Controls and procedures sit in repositories, connect to risks and requirements through the taxonomy, and get tested through monitoring, with an Internal Audit solution listed among the modules. We found no public information on a control catalogue with implementation status per control, a statement of applicability, or evidence attached to controls. 1 2 5
Framework & standard coverage
panel disagrees
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
COSO, ISO, NIST and OCEG are named under a Risk Maturity Model umbrella that claims one common framework across standards, a SOC 2 workshop is offered, and Taxonomy Insights suggests regulations. For my NIS2 exposure I found no public information on NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz coverage, nor a documented control-level mapping or update cadence when a standard moves. 1 4 3
The GRC Consultant
COSO, ISO, NIST and OCEG are named under one umbrella Risk Maturity Model measuring the foundational truths shared across standards, SOC 2 appears as an on-demand advisory workshop, and the taxonomy ties mitigation activities to requirements — the right shape for answering a control once. We found no public information on NIS2, TISAX or DORA coverage, on a documented control-level cross-framework mapping, or on published updates when a standard changes. 1 4 2
The Drafted IT Officer
Several regimes are named — the Risk Maturity Model claims alignment with COSO, ISO, NIST and OCEG, there is an on-demand SOC 2 compliance workshop, and regulatory compliance is one of the solution modules. I found no public information on European regimes like NIS2, TISAX or DORA, nor on a documented control mapping across those standards, so the frameworks feel adjacent rather than operationalised. 1 3 4
The Lead Auditor
Standards appear as alignments: a Risk Maturity Model is said to measure foundational truths shared across COSO, ISO, NIST and OCEG, and SOC 2 is offered as an on-demand advisory workshop. We found no public information on NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz coverage, on controls mapped across frameworks at catalogue level, or on published updates when a standard changes. 1 3 4
The Evidence Integrator
The Risk Maturity Model is presented as an umbrella framework measuring what COSO, ISO, NIST and OCEG share, with a common framework across governance, risk and compliance, a Regulatory Compliance solution module, and an on-demand SOC 2 advisory workshop. But the captured pages name no delivered framework catalogue — no ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz package — and show no documented cross-framework control mapping or update cadence when a standard changes. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The framework story is a Risk Maturity Model 'aligned with' COSO, ISO, NIST and OCEG — four standard-family names with no delivered requirement set or control catalogue shown — and SOC 2 appears only as an on-demand advisory workshop, which is a service rather than software content. We found no public information on NIS2, TISAX, DORA or BSI IT-Grundschutz coverage, or on controls mapped across frameworks. 1 4
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
Reporting is the strong suit: configurable reports for board, regulatory and internal audiences, dashboards and heatmaps, key risk indicators and real-time trends from one source of truth. But we found no public information on a revision-safe change history, evidence attached per control, on-demand evidence packs or read-only auditor access — an auditor cannot be shown any record as it stood on a given date. 5 3
The GRC Consultant
Reporting is the best-evidenced area: configurable reports for board presentations, regulatory submissions and internal teams, Insight Workbenches, built-in dashboards, heatmaps and risk matrices with key risk indicators, all off a single source of truth. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence attached per control, audit evidence packs generated on demand, or read-only auditor access — which is what separates dashboards from defensible proof. 5 2 1
The Drafted IT Officer
Reporting is the strong suit: configurable reports for board, regulatory and internal audiences, real-time dashboards, heatmaps and key-risk-indicator tracking from a single source of truth. I found no public information on a revision-safe change history, evidence attached per control, or read-only auditor access — exactly what my external auditor will ask me for — so it stops short of defensible proof packs. 5 2 3
The Lead Auditor
Reporting is the documented strength: configurable reports for board, regulatory and internal audiences, dynamic dashboards, heatmaps, risk matrices, KRI and tolerance tracking around one source of truth. For revision safety we found no public information on a change history, audit evidence packs generated on demand, or read-only auditor access, and nothing captured would let me reproduce a record as it stood on a given date. 5 2 1
The Evidence Integrator
Reports are configurable for board, regulatory and internal audiences, built on dynamic dashboards, heatmaps and risk matrices with a single source of truth for reporting, and testing plus metric collection feed control-effectiveness findings. We found no public information on versioned records or a revision-safe change history, audit evidence packs generated on demand, read-only auditor access, or reproduction of a record as it stood on a given date — reporting exists, defensible proof is not shown. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
Reporting is the best-evidenced area: configurable reports for board and regulatory audiences, dashboards, heatmaps, key-risk-indicator and tolerance tracking, all from one source of truth. The pages stop at visualisation — we found no public information on change history, versioned records, evidence packs generated on demand, or read-only auditor access. 1 2 5
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
The connector program is substantive: vendor-maintained prebuilt connectors to a claimed 7,000 applications, a named Entra ID connector with SCIM provisioning and separation of duties enforcement, DocuSign, drag-and-drop field mapping, and a completeness check at setup. We found no public information on a documented API for the core objects, webhooks, ticketing or CMDB connectors in the Jira/ServiceNow class, or automated evidence collection with human review. 6
The GRC Consultant
The connector program is substantial: a claimed 7,000 applications, prebuilt and vendor-maintained connectors with direct-to-production setup, SCIM and Entra ID provisioning with separation-of-duties enforcement, DocuSign for contract signatures, drag-and-drop field mapping for business users, and a Completeness Checker verifying integrations. We found no public information on a documented REST API, webhooks, or named ticketing, CMDB, cloud or endpoint connectors, and the control testing described is not shown as automated evidence collection against the live estate. 6 2 3
The Drafted IT Officer
This genuinely appeals to a one-person shop: over 7,000 applications connectable through vendor-maintained prebuilt connectors, SCIM and Entra ID provisioning with separation of duties, drag-and-drop field mapping without waiting on IT, and a completeness checker verifying integrations at setup. I found no public information on a documented REST API, webhooks or automated evidence collection, so it doesn't reach the top benches. 6 2
The Lead Auditor
The connector program is real product surface: prebuilt, vendor-maintained connectors to a claimed 7,000-plus applications with direct-to-production setup, drag-and-drop field mapping, a named SCIM and Entra ID connector automating provisioning, and a completeness checker verifying integrations. We found no public information on a documented REST API for core objects, webhooks, or automated evidence collection with human review, so breadth is proven where depth is not. 6 2
The Evidence Integrator
This is where the platform earns its keep in my eyes: a connector program claiming over 7,000 applications, prebuilt connectors maintained by the vendor with direct-to-production setup, drag-and-drop data field mapping without IT, a SCIM & Entra ID connector automating provisioning and deprovisioning with separation-of-duties enforcement, a DocuSign connector that automatically retrieves signed agreements, and a Completeness Checker that verifies the wiring from day one. What holds me below the top level: the captured pages document no REST API for core objects, no webhooks, and no continuous control monitoring or automated evidence tests against the live estate — the connectors move data, but the control checks are not shown to run themselves. 6
The Skeptic
Named, prebuilt, vendor-maintained connectors are documented — DocuSign, and Entra ID with SCIM user provisioning — plus drag-and-drop field mapping and a completeness checker for setup. The 'over 7,000 applications' headline is a bare figure with no list behind it, and we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, ticketing or CMDB connectors, or automated evidence collection. 6
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 only proven fact is a Boston, USA global headquarters on a marketing page, which the capture itself caveats is not a formal registration. Data residency, hosting location, subprocessors and a data processing agreement are all unstated to us, and EMEA appears as a region served rather than a hosting statement, so I cannot tell where my risk register would live or under whose law — not proven non-EU end to end, but nothing provable in Europe's favour either. 3 4
The GRC Consultant
The only proven fact is a Boston, USA global headquarters, and even that from a marketing page rather than a formal imprint; hosting location, data residency, subprocessors and a data processing agreement are unstated on the captured pages, with EMEA and APAC appearing as regions but not as hosting locations. For a platform that holds a company's entire risk register, we found no public information on an EU hosting option, a published subprocessor list or data processing terms. 3 4
The Drafted IT Officer
A marketing page states Boston, USA as the global headquarters; I found no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement or subprocessors — EMEA and APAC appear only as regions served, not as hosting locations. For a European buyer whose whole risk register would live in this cloud, the jurisdictional question is left open rather than answered, though only the entity side is proven. 3 4
The Lead Auditor
The captured pages show a global headquarters address of Boston, USA (a marketing page, not a formal register entry) and name EMEA and APAC as regions. We found no public information on hosting location, data residency, a data processing agreement, or subprocessors, so only the entity dimension is proven and the chain of custody for a European risk register remains unknown. 3 4
The Evidence Integrator
The only proven facts are a Boston, USA global headquarters — itself a marketing-page address rather than a commercial-register entry — and an EMEA office region, which says nothing about where the risk register itself is hosted. Hosting location, data residency options, subprocessors, a data processing agreement and TOMs are not stated anywhere we captured, so a European buyer faces one non-EU corporate signal and an undocumented chain for everything that matters. 3 4
The Skeptic
The only sovereignty fact on the captured pages is a Boston global headquarters stated on a marketing page — an address, not a commercial-register entry. Hosting location, data residency, subprocessors and a data processing agreement: we found no public information, and the EMEA and APAC region listings read as market availability rather than hosting. 3 4
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 licensing structure is unusually well described — a fixed-price model, Jobs-to-be-Done licensing rather than per-user seats, unlimited user licenses, implementation, training and maintenance included, and a 90-day satisfaction guarantee. No price figures, editions or scale steps are published on the captured pages, so the real invoice for a 400-employee company stays a sales conversation behind a free demonstration. 1 3 6
The GRC Consultant
The captured pages show no price figures, tiers or scale steps anywhere, so a buyer cannot compute an invoice from public material. The pricing model itself is documented in unusual detail — a fixed-price model with no hidden fees, Jobs-to-be-Done licensing instead of per-user seats, unlimited user licenses, implementation, training and maintenance included at no extra cost, and a 90-day unconditional satisfaction guarantee. 1 3 6
The Drafted IT Officer
The licensing model is described unusually clearly — a fixed-price model with no hidden fees, Jobs-to-be-Done licensing rather than user seats, unlimited user licenses, implementation, training and maintenance included, and a 90-day unconditional satisfaction guarantee. The captured pages give no price figures at all, so the real invoice still comes out of a sales conversation. 1 3 6
The Lead Auditor
The shape of the invoice is unusually well described — fixed-price model with no hidden fees, Jobs-to-be-Done licensing rather than per-user seats, unlimited user licenses, implementation, training and maintenance included, and a 90-day satisfaction guarantee — but no price figures of any kind appear. Every actual number is a sales conversation, so a buyer cannot compute the invoice from the public pages. 1 3 6
The Evidence Integrator
The captured pages describe the shape of the deal in public — a fixed-price model with no hidden fees, Jobs-to-be-Done licensing instead of per-user seats, unlimited user licenses, and implementation, training and maintenance included at no extra cost, backed by a 90-day satisfaction guarantee. No actual price figure appears anywhere, so no invoice for any company size is computable from these pages; the model is transparent, every number is a sales conversation. 1 3 6
The Skeptic
The commercial model is described at length — fixed price with 'no hidden fees', jobs-to-be-done licensing instead of user seats, unlimited user licenses, implementation, training and maintenance included, and a 90-Day Unconditional Satisfaction Guarantee — yet no figure is public, so no invoice can be computed without a demo call. Unpublished pricing is the norm in this market; this is a clear case of it. 1 3 6
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | Incorporated in US ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 4 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 LogicManager
Is LogicManager European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where LogicManager is based. Its vendor, LogicManager, Inc., is incorporated in United States, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
Where does LogicManager store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does LogicManager have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to LogicManager?
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: LogicManager 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.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. This is a headquarters address on a marketing page, not a formal imprint or commercial register entry, so the actual place of incorporation (e.g. a US state register) is not stated.
- 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.
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (logicmanager.com, logicmanager.com/platform/risk-taxonomy, logicmanager.com/platform/risk-based-process, logicmanager.com/logicmanager-advisory-workshop-on-demand-soc-2-compliance, logicmanager.com/platform/dashboard-reports, logicmanager.com/logicmanager-connector-program). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
Sources (6)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.logicmanager.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.logicmanager.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.logicmanager.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.logicmanager.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.logicmanager.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.logicmanager.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →