whats-best.ai

Information Security

preeco | informationssicherheit

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

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

by preeco GmbH & Co. KG · www.preeco.de

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

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

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

The risk backbone is real: protection needs follow the IT-Grundschutz damage-scenario matrix with maximum principle and accumulation across linked assets, releasing an asset creates a revision and updates inheritance information, and incidents carry severity and a reporting-duty assessment with automatic monitoring of reporting deadlines, backed by nine ready templates covering BSI early-warning, notification and final reports plus GDPR Articles 33 and 34. Risks link directly to measures with a freely definable methodology and residual risks can be formally accepted with their own treatment in the degree-of-fulfilment metrics. I found no public information on continuity planning, which is what the highest bar adds. 2 14 17 12 2 13

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

The statement of applicability is the strongest part: marking a requirement not applicable forces an exclusion justification that flows automatically into the SoA, which can be filed per catalog as an immutable, dated version that stays traceable over time. Measures carry owners, status, versioning and links to risks and protection needs, and audits run structured and on schedule with centrally available evidence. I found no public information on measure delegation or escalation, on audit findings management, or on versioned catalog updates — the difference between a good control register and a living control fabric. 16 7 15 8 2

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

For the German market the breadth is genuinely there — ISO 27001, NIS2 and BSI C5 as loadable catalogs plus BSI IT-Grundschutz, CISIS12 and VdA ISA as optional paid ones, a communal SiKoSH catalog, monthly updates, and DORA only promised as timely implementation. Answering a control once and mapping it across regimes, the thing that makes client twelve cheaper than client one, is not evidenced: the captured pages give different signals, one stating exactly one catalog is activated per organization while the SoA guide describes a certification document created separately for each loaded catalog. I found no public information on cross-framework mapping or SOC 2 content. 7 2 2 18 17 1 12

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

Revision safety is the strongest card: every approval creates an immutable revision with SHA-256 integrity verification and visual comparison, activity logs are complete and filterable by period and user, and evidence carries validity dates whose expiry the cockpit flags ahead of the next audit, with filed SoA versions keeping exclusions traceable to a point in time. I found no public information on auditor access roles or audit-scoped evidence packs an external auditor accepts as-is. Integrity verification of revisions predating that feature is documented as not retroactive, which tempers the answer to "show me the state on date X". 19 20 7 2

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

The vendor itself states the application is designed as a self-contained system and that no public REST API is currently available; customer-specific endpoints and SAML2 single sign-on exist only for Private Cloud and On-Premises variants, import is XLSX for training participants against PDF, DOCX and XLSX exports, and migrations run as individual paid projects. I found no public information on directory or CMDB import, ticketing connectors, webhooks, SCIM or automated evidence collection — evidence arrives by manual upload or a request link, so nothing here feeds from the live IT estate. 12 2 2 20

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

The chain is largely European: a German entity registered at the Ulm district court, hosting exclusively at Hetzner in Nürnberg and Falkenstein with the data centers named, a published DPA with online signing, downloadable TOMs, stated freedom from third-country transfer for product data, and an on-premises variant in which data never leaves the customer's data center. It stops short of the highest bar because the DPA's full subprocessor list sits in an appendix the captured pages do not show, ownership is not documented publicly, and the optional DeepL and OpenAI-compatible LLM integrations would add content-touching processors whose jurisdictions are not constrained in what is published. 4 9 10 12 5

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

There are no public price figures — the license and pricing model is prepared as a separate individual offer depending on employee count, modules and hosting variant, while optional catalogs, data migration and premium support remain unpriced line items. Credit where due for structure: an annual subscription with monthly or yearly billing, updates, maintenance and support included, and no setup fees or cancellation notice periods are stated publicly. 12 2 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 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.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency EU only ⚠ unverified 3/3 pts 9 Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error

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.

Sources (20)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Information security product page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 15 Sep 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  3. 3 About page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Imprint www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Privacy policy www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Product documentation library www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  7. 7 SoA automation doc www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 24 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  8. 8 ISMS cockpit metrics doc www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Hosting variants page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Published DPA (AVV) for cloud customers www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Multi-entity use case page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Full product specification (Leistungsbeschreibung) www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  16. 16 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  17. 17 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  18. 18 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  19. 19 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  20. 20 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →