Information Security
Secfix
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Secfix GmbH · www.secfix.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.
Secfix at a glance
- Vendor
- Secfix GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Secfix 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Secfix, an all-in-one security compliance platform from Secfix GmbH, earns its highest scores on breadth and control mechanics. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Secfix, an all-in-one security compliance platform from Secfix GmbH, earns its highest scores on breadth and control mechanics. Framework coverage is the most consistent strength at a flat 8 — ten regimes, from ISO 27001 to NIS2, on one data basis, with one risk scenario and one piece of evidence mapping across frameworks. Controls and statement of applicability score 7-8, audit readiness 7-8, and integrations and automation 7-8, supported by 100+ pre-built integrations, 250+ automated checks and a well-documented public API. Sovereignty sits at a flat 2 — no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list — and the German legal form is the only European signal in the captures. Information security management scores 6-7, held there by an unevidenced incident side: no incident module appears in the published module lists. The judges did not meaningfully split — no criterion spans more than one point and no meaningful disagreement was flagged; the single-point spreads reflect degree, not direction. Prices are unpublished; the demo is free and non-binding.
Speaks for it
- Statement of Applicability generates as controls are assessed, with exclusion justifications and each control linked to the evidence proving it.
- One risk scenario and one piece of collected evidence map across the ten supported frameworks, including DORA pre-mapped against ISO 27001, SOC 2 and GDPR.
- Assets are discovered live from MDM, SaaS and cloud sources with automatic owner assignment, bulk classification and in/out-of-scope tracking.
- 100+ pre-built integrations across SSO, Cloud, Ticketing and HRIS feed 250+ automated checks running continuously across systems, people, devices and vendors.
- A public API with OAuth 2.0 client credentials, an OpenAPI 3.0 contract the vendor states is generated from the same source as production, RFC 7807 errors and additive-only versioning.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored a flat 2, with no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list.
- No incident module appears in the published module lists, and judges found no public information on incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks.
- The documented API surface covers computers and inventory assets, and judges found no public information on webhooks, SCIM or event streams.
- Judges found no public information on exportable audit-scoped proof packs or on reconstructing the state on a given past date.
- No prices are published — the only pricing fact captured is a free, non-binding demo.
Best for
- You run compliance against several frameworks at once and want each control answered once, with evidence reused across ISO 27001, SOC 2, TISAX, GDPR, DORA and NIS2.
- You are a startup or SME preparing a first ISO 27001 certification and want the internal audit run inside the tool before the external auditor arrives.
- Your estate already runs on AWS, Azure, GCP, Intune, Jamf or Google Workspace and you want a live inventory with continuous checks instead of a spreadsheet.
- You want a dedicated team of compliance experts bundled with the platform rather than a separate consultancy.
Avoid if
- You need incident handling with statutory reporting clocks in the same tool — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must verify hosting location, a data processing agreement or the subprocessor list before committing — judges found no public information on any of these, and sovereignty scored a flat 2.
- You need the API to reach risks, controls and evidence — the documented API surface covers computers and inventory assets, with no public information on webhooks or SCIM.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Asset & risk management depth | 3 of 5 |
| Controls, SoA & measures | 4 of 5 |
| Framework & standard coverage | 4 of 5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 4 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), 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.
The CISO
A real methodology is documented: the full ISO 27005 lifecycle with risk scenarios linked to controls, evidence, policies and vendors, automatic owner assignment, quarterly reviews and an audit trail, plus asset discovery with owners, classification and scope tracking. For a NIS2-exposed company, I found no public information on incident workflows with statutory 24h/72h clocks, on protection-needs inherited across asset relations, or on risk-acceptance decisions showing who accepted what. 2 3 7
The GRC Consultant
The risk methodology is real — the documented ISO 27005 lifecycle with pre-built scenarios, automatic owner assignment, quarterly reviews and a full audit trail, plus asset discovery with owners, classification and in/out-of-scope tracking, sits well above a flat spreadsheet. But I found no public information on incident handling with statutory reporting clocks, on protection needs inheriting across asset relations, or on risk-acceptance decisions with ownership, and for my book of clients that is the half of the ISMS that decides whether the tool earns its keep. 2 3 5
The Drafted IT Officer
The risk side is genuinely built for someone like me: a documented ISO 27005 lifecycle from identification through monitoring, pre-built risk scenarios with automatic owner assignment and scheduled quarterly reviews, and assets discovered with owners and classifications instead of re-typed from my spreadsheet. What I could not find is any incident handling with the statutory reporting clocks, or protection needs inheriting across related assets — and as the person who would have to file a 24-hour report, that silence worries me. 2 3 7
The Lead Auditor
The methodology is documented as a full ISO 27005 lifecycle with pre-built risk scenarios, automatic owner assignment, scheduled quarterly reviews, treatment plans and a full change audit trail, and discovery assigns owners and classification to assets — a real backbone, not a flat list. We found no public information on protection-needs inheritance across asset relations, on incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks, or on formal risk acceptance records, which is what separates this from a chain a certifier can work inside end to end. 2 3 7
The Evidence Integrator
Risk management follows the full ISO 27005 lifecycle — identification through treatment and monitoring — with pre-built scenarios, automatic owner assignment, scheduled quarterly reviews and an audit trail of every change, and assets are discovered live from MDM, SaaS and cloud sources rather than typed in. We found no public information on incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks, risk acceptance decisions, or protection needs inheriting across asset relations, and no incident module appears in the published module lists. Live discovery plus a documented methodology lift this above the middle; the unevidenced incident side holds it there. 2 3 8
The Skeptic
The risk methodology is genuinely documented — ISO 27005 lifecycle from identification to monitoring, pre-built scenarios with automatic owners and quarterly reviews, and a change trail — and asset discovery with bulk classification and scope tracking is real, with custom hardware entering by bulk Excel. But I found no public information on incident handling of any kind, statutory reporting clocks, protection-need inheritance across asset relations, or configurable risk matrices. That puts asset and risk management depth solidly above a flat register and below a full risk backbone. 2 3
Controls, SoA & measures
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The CISO
The Statement of Applicability is generated as controls are assessed with exclusion justifications, every control links to the exact evidence proving it with owners and due frequency, and the internal audit runs first with non-conformities logged, assigned and tracked to closed. I found no public information on delegation and escalation chains for measures or on vendor-side catalog versioning, which is what holds this below the top bench. 4 8 2
The GRC Consultant
This is the strongest side: the Statement of Applicability generates as controls are assessed with justifications for exclusions, every control links to the exact evidence that proves it with owner and due frequency, and an internal-audit-first workflow logs non-conformities with owners tracked to closed. Full version history on controls and evidence is what makes client twelve cheaper than client one; I found no public information on recurring audit program schedules or on delegation and escalation of measures, which keeps it short of a fully living control fabric. 4 5 8
The Drafted IT Officer
The Statement of Applicability builds itself as I mark controls applicable, with the exclusion justifications an auditor expects, and every control carries its own linked evidence with owner and due frequency. Non-conformities get logged, assigned an owner, and tracked to closed with an internal audit run before the external one — exactly the hand-holding I need. Measure tracking leans on reminders to owners rather than delegation and escalation, so it sits just short of the top rung. 4 8 1
The Lead Auditor
The Statement of Applicability is generated as controls are assessed, exclusions carry justifications, every control links to the evidence proving it with owners and due frequency, and non-conformities are logged, owned and tracked to closed after an internal audit pass — the control side is operable rather than a checklist. We found no public information on measure delegation, escalation paths, or recurring audit-program schedules, so it stops short of the fully living fabric. 4 8 7
The Evidence Integrator
The statement of applicability builds itself as controls are assessed, exclusions carry the justification an auditor expects, and every control links to the exact evidence proving it, each item showing owner, due frequency and full version history. Internal audit runs inside the product, with non-conformities logged, assigned an owner and tracked to closed before the external auditor sees them. We found no public information on delegation or escalation paths for measures, or on how control catalogs are versioned when a standard moves. 4 5 8
The Skeptic
This is the vendor's strongest ground: Statement of Applicability generated as controls are assessed with exclusion justifications, every control linked to its proving evidence, full version history with AI change summaries, and non-conformities logged, owned and tracked to closure after an internal audit run first. What I could not verify from the captured pages is measure delegation with escalation and versioned catalog updates as regimes evolve. The control side is operable, not a consultant's checklist. 4 8
Framework & standard coverage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The CISO
Ten regimes are listed including ISO 27001, SOC 2, TISAX, GDPR, DORA and NIS2, and the same risk scenario maps automatically across frameworks with evidence collected once — one control answered for many frameworks, not parallel islands. I found no public information on a documented update cadence as regimes evolve or on per-industry profiles. 6 7 2
The GRC Consultant
Ten regimes including NIS2, TISAX and DORA, and — the part I care about most — the same risk scenario and a single piece of collected evidence mapping across frameworks so a control is answered once, with DORA pre-mapped against ISO 27001, SOC 2 and GDPR. I found no public information on a documented update cadence when standards move or on per-industry profiles, so this is broad current coverage with genuine cross-mapping rather than framework coverage as a living product. 2 4 7 9
The Drafted IT Officer
Ten regimes are named — ISO 27001, SOC 2, TISAX, GDPR, DORA, NIS2, plus the privacy and AI standards — and the same risk scenario maps automatically to controls across frameworks, so I would answer each control once instead of once per framework, with evidence reused everywhere. I found no public information on a documented update cadence when a standard moves, which is what holds it back from the very top. 9 2 4 7
The Lead Auditor
Ten regimes including TISAX, NIS2 and DORA are listed, and the mapping is genuine multi-compliance: one risk scenario and one piece of collected evidence map across frameworks instead of one register per framework, with DORA overlaps pre-mapped against ISO 27001, SOC 2 and GDPR. We found no public information on per-industry profiles or a documented update cadence when a standard moves. 9 2 4 7
The Evidence Integrator
Ten regimes — ISO 27001, SOC 2, TISAX, GDPR, DORA, NIS2, ISO 9001, ISO 27701, ISO 27018 and ISO/IEC 42001 — run on one data basis, with a single risk scenario auto-mapped to controls across frameworks and evidence collected once and reused everywhere; the DORA pages pre-map overlap against ISO 27001, SOC 2 and GDPR with a readiness dashboard. We found no public information on a documented update cadence when a regime evolves, or on per-industry profiles, which is the difference between a long list and a living one. 2 4 7 9
The Skeptic
Ten regimes are named consistently across every page I can see, including NIS2, TISAX and DORA with dedicated pages, and one-scenario-many-frameworks mapping is claimed on the risk page and shown as overlap pre-mapping on the DORA page. I found no public information on a documented update cadence when standards move, per-industry profiles, or BSI IT-Grundschutz, and depth beyond the logos is uneven. Broad coverage with genuine cross-mapping, just short of the living-product top. 2 6 7 9
Audit readiness & evidence
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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".
The CISO
Full version history on evidence and controls, continuous collection with due-soon and overdue flags, completeness checks before the auditor arrives, structured view-only auditor access to evidence, controls and non-conformities, and the audit lifecycle from Stage 1 through surveillance and recertification in one hub. I found no public information on exporting a defensible point-in-time state for a past date beyond version history. 8 4 3
The GRC Consultant
Revision-safety is evidenced — full version history and an audit trail of every change — evidence is collected continuously with due-soon and overdue flags, and auditors get structured view-only access to evidence, controls and non-conformities from Stage 1 through surveillance and recertification. I found no public information on audit-scoped evidence packs exported on demand or on reconstructing the state on a given date, which is what separates standing audit readiness from an audit that still takes days to assemble. 2 4 8
The Drafted IT Officer
Every evidence item and control keeps a full version history with plain-language AI summaries of changes, evidence is collected continuously and flagged due-soon or overdue, and the auditor gets structured view-only access to evidence, controls, and non-conformities across the whole cycle from Stage 1 to recertification. Management reporting appears only as a passing mention of security reports, and I found no public information on reconstructing the state of everything on a given past date. 8 4 2 6
The Lead Auditor
Every evidence item and control keeps a full version history, evidence is collected continuously with due-soon and overdue flags, in- and out-of-scope tracking gives the auditor one source of truth, and auditors get structured view-only access — a standing state rather than a sprint. We found no public information on audit-scoped evidence pack exports, management reports generated at a click, or reconstruction of the state on a given date, which is the question I always put to a vendor before certification. 8 4 3
The Evidence Integrator
Evidence is collected continuously with due-soon and overdue flags, every evidence item and control keeps a full version history with plain-language change summaries, and auditors get structured view-only access to evidence, controls and non-conformities from Stage 1 through annual surveillance and recertification. We found no public information on exportable audit-scoped proof packs or on reconstructing the state on a given date, which is what separates a strong hub from a standing state. 4 8
The Skeptic
Version history for evidence and controls, a full change trail on risks, structured view-only auditor access, continuous collection with due-soon and overdue flags, and audit lifecycle support through surveillance and recertification — the mechanics are evidenced, not just promised. The headline numbers, a claimed 100% audit success rate across 1000+ audits, are marketing figures I can only take at face value; I found no public information on audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, management reports at a click, or reconstructing the state on a given date. That lands just under the full revision-safe benchmark. 4 8
Integrations & automation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The CISO
One hundred plus pre-built integrations across AWS, Azure, GCP, Intune and Jamf in the SSO, Cloud, Ticketing and HRIS categories feed continuous control monitoring and evidence collection, backed by a public REST API with a published OpenAPI 3.0 contract, OAuth 2.0 and bulk asset operations. The documented API surface covers inventory assets and computers; I found no public information on webhooks or SCIM provisioning. 9 10 3
The GRC Consultant
The estate actually feeds the platform: 100+ pre-built integrations across cloud, endpoint, ticketing, HRIS and SSO with automatic MDM and SaaS import, and 250+ automated checks running continuously across systems, people, devices and vendors. The public API is above the market norm — OAuth 2.0, a published OpenAPI 3 contract kept in sync, and bulk asset writes — but I found no public information on webhooks, SCIM, or write access beyond inventory assets, so it stays just under infrastructure-grade. 3 6 9 10
The Drafted IT Officer
This is the part that made me relax: AWS, Azure, GCP, Google Workspace, Intune, and Jamf among 100+ integrations, feeding 250+ automated checks across systems, people, devices, and vendors instead of me re-typing facts. The public API is a real one — OAuth 2.0, a published OpenAPI 3.0 contract kept in sync with production, inventory and computer objects readable and writable — though I found no public information on webhooks or directory provisioning, and the documented surface I can see covers assets and computers. 3 9 10 8
The Lead Auditor
One hundred-plus connectors across cloud, endpoint, HRIS and ticketing categories feed live discovery, 250-plus automated checks run continuously across systems, people, devices and vendors, and there is a real public API with an OpenAPI 3 contract kept in sync with production, OAuth 2.0, additive versioning, bulk writes and structured errors. The endpoint surface shown covers computers and inventory; we found no public information on webhooks, SCIM provisioning or event streams. 10 3 9 8
The Evidence Integrator
This is the spine of the product: AWS, Azure, GCP, Microsoft Intune, Jamf and the workspace suites feed a live inventory, more than 250 automated checks run continuously across systems, people, devices and vendors, and the public API is genuinely engineered — OAuth 2.0 client credentials, an OpenAPI 3.0 contract the vendor states is generated from the same source as production, cursor pagination, RFC 7807 errors, per-client rate limits and additive-only versioning. What keeps it short of infrastructure grade is that the documented API surface we could verify covers computers and inventory assets out of a ten-module product, and we found no public information on webhooks, SCIM or event streams. 3 8 9 10
The Skeptic
The API is real and unusually well-documented — public OpenAPI 3 contract, OAuth2 client credentials, RFC 7807 errors, additive-only versioning — but the documented surface covers inventory assets and computers only, while risks, controls and evidence appear nowhere in the endpoints. Cloud and endpoint connectors are named (AWS, Azure, GCP, Intune, Jamf), ticketing, HRIS and SSO exist as pre-built categories, and 250+ automated checks run continuously. I found no public information on webhooks, SCIM, or a named ticketing connector, so this stops short of infrastructure-grade. 3 8 10
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 — 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.
The CISO
The entity is a German GmbH addressing a German-speaking market, and that is the entire jurisdictional picture captured. I found no public information on hosting location or named data centers, on a published data processing agreement, or on a subprocessor list — an opaque chain for the system that would hold my risk register, which is itself a target. 1 6
The GRC Consultant
The vendor line names Secfix GmbH, so a German entity is on record, and that is where the captured information ends: I found no public information on hosting location or named data centers, on a published DPA, or on the subprocessor list. The risk register is itself a target, and nothing public lets me place this system under European jurisdiction end to end. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The company presents itself as a German GmbH, which is a start, but I found no public information on where hosting lives, on a data processing agreement, or on any subprocessor list — and this platform would hold my entire risk register plus data pulled from AWS, Azure, and GCP. For an accidental security officer in a German SME that is the first question I need answered, and the captured pages do not answer it. 1 3
The Lead Auditor
The vendor presents as Secfix GmbH with German-language support, so the contracting entity is European. We found no public information on hosting locations or named data centers, a published DPA, or a subprocessor list — for the system that holds the risk register itself, that documentation gap leaves the jurisdictional question open rather than answered. 1 6
The Evidence Integrator
We found no public information on hosting location, named data centers, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list — for the platform that would hold the risk register itself. The vendor's German legal form suggests a European entity, but nothing published shows where the posture lives or under whose law it sits. 1
The Skeptic
The sovereignty record is empty: I found no public information on hosting location, data centers, a DPA, or a subprocessor list for the system that would hold the risk register. The only European signal anywhere is the GmbH in the vendor name. A buyer cannot verify under whose law their entire security posture would sit from these captures. 1
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 — 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.
The CISO
The only commercial fact captured is a free, non-binding demo; no editions, module prices, billing periods or setup fees appear in the captured pages. The real invoice for a certification project is therefore purely a sales conversation — the market norm, stated plainly rather than condemned. 6 7
The GRC Consultant
The only pricing-adjacent fact published is a free, non-binding demo; I found no public information on editions, modules, per-user or per-entity prices, or how the included team of compliance experts is charged. A buyer cannot compute any part of the real invoice from public pages, which in this market is unremarkable but is worth stating plainly. 6 7
The Drafted IT Officer
The only buying information on any captured page is that a demo is free and non-binding; I found no public prices for editions, modules, or scale steps, and no separation of software from the bundled compliance experts. Realistically the invoice exists only after a sales conversation. 6 7
The Lead Auditor
We found no public information on prices, editions, module costs, billing periods or setup fees; the only pricing-adjacent statement is a free, non-binding demo. Every real configuration is a sales conversation, so the invoice cannot be computed from the published pages — the market norm, but the buyer should expect a quote before comparing. 6 7
The Evidence Integrator
The only cost-related statement in the captured pages is that a demo is free and non-binding; we found no public prices for any edition, module or scale step, so the real invoice is a sales conversation. Unpublished pricing is the norm in this market, and we record it exactly as found. 6 7
The Skeptic
The only pricing-adjacent public fact is a free, non-binding demo; I found no public information on edition prices, module pricing, user or entity tiers, billing periods, or how the bundled dedicated compliance experts are separated from software cost. This is the no-public-prices case the market knows well — described, not condemned — but it is unmistakably that case. 6 7
Questions about Secfix
Is Secfix European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Secfix is based.
Where does Secfix store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Secfix have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Secfix?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates 6clicks (3.5/5), preeco | informationssicherheit (3.5/5) and Akarion GRC Cloud (ISMS) (3/5) highest among the other 26 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: Secfix alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 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.
- We could not confirm any compliance information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 20 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 18 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting 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 legal 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
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap developer.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →