whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

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 Lead Auditor

Weighted verdict

Certifies ISMSs for a living and has seen every folder of screenshots. Optimizes for revision-safe history, an SoA generated from live control status, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X". Rejects audit trails assembled the week before the audit.

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

Scored by The Lead Auditor

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 Lead Auditor

The asset-risk-treatment chain is real: protection needs follow the IT-Grundschutz method (damage-scenario matrix, maximum principle, accumulation across linked systems, inheritance information updated on release), the risk methodology is freely definable, risks link directly to the measures that reduce them, and consciously accepted residual risks are tracked as accepted and taken out of the fulfilment metric. Incidents carry categories, severity, reporting-duty assessment with automatically monitored deadlines, and nine ready report templates for BSI early warning, NIS2 and KRITIS filings. I found no public information on continuity planning, which is what keeps this short of the top. 8 2 12 13 14 17

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 Lead Auditor

This is the strongest part: the Statement of Applicability is produced per catalog from the live assessed state, the exclusion justification is a mandatory field that flows into the SoA automatically, and filed SoA versions are immutable with date and author and remain traceable over time. Measures carry owners, status and versioning and link to risks and protection needs, every requirement has its own evidence tab with validity dates, and cockpit fulfilment updates in real time. I found no public information on findings management inside audit workflows or on escalation paths for overdue measures. 8 12 7 15 16

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 Lead Auditor

The German-market regimes are genuinely there — ISO 27001, BSI IT-Grundschutz, BSI C5, NIS2, CISIS12, VdA ISA (TISAX) and the municipal SiKoSH catalog — and NIS2 has substance (incident templates, management training) rather than being a thin content pack. But the captured pages state that exactly one catalog is activated per organization and the SoA is created separately per catalog, and I found no public information on answering one control across several frameworks; DORA appears solely as a commitment to implement new requirements promptly. That is breadth without the one-control-many-frameworks mapping. 1 2 12 7 18

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 Lead Auditor

Revision security is genuinely built in: every approval creates an immutable revision with SHA-256 integrity verification and visual comparison, activity logs cover document changes and administrative actions on user accounts, and evidence sits permanently on each requirement with validity dates and cockpit expiry warnings. Status and audit reports, recurring reports, and management dashboards with a compliance-level weekly trend are documented. What holds it back for me: the SoA filing date is chosen by the user rather than set by the system, older revisions cannot be verified retroactively since the feature was introduced, and I found no public information on auditor access roles or audit-scoped evidence packs at a click. 2 7 13 19 20

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 Lead Auditor

The vendor describes the application as a closed system and states that no public REST API is currently available; customer-specific endpoints can be developed only on Private Cloud and On-Premises variants. What the pages do show is PDF/DOCX export with XLSX for tables and participant imports, optional SAML2 single sign-on on the higher hosting tiers, and optional DeepL and OpenAI-compatible language-model services. I found no public information on directory import, ticketing, CMDB or scanner connectors, webhooks, or automated evidence testing. 9 2 12 2

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 Lead Auditor

The visible chain is European: a German company registered in Ulm, hosting exclusively in the named ISO 27001 data centers of Hetzner in Nuremberg and Falkenstein, UpCloud in Finland for internal monitoring, a published DPA with Article 28 standard clauses, downloadable TOMs, two weeks' written notice on subprocessor changes, no third-country transfer, and an on-premises option where data never leaves the customer's datacenter. The DPA's full sub-processor list sits in an appendix the captured pages do not show, and the optional customer-configurable OpenAI-compatible providers sit outside the documented chain. I found no public information on the ownership structure. 4 5 9 10 12

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 Lead Auditor

Every price is an individual offer: the vendor states the licensing and price model is prepared separately per customer depending on employee count, chosen modules and hosting variant, and no figures appear anywhere on the captured pages. The model structure is public — annual subscription with monthly or yearly payment, updates and support included, no setup fees, no notice periods — and several add-ons (audit catalogs, DeepL, migration, trainings, premium support) are declared optional and paid without amounts. I found no public information on any actual price. 2 12 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.

Do you know more about preeco | informationssicherheit? Tell us Report an error on this page

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 →