whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Information Security

Secfix

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

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

by Secfix GmbH · www.secfix.com

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

Link to this page

Secfix: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Secfix: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

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

Secfix alternatives, European ones first →

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

The GRC Consultant

Weighted verdict

Builds and runs ISMSs for a dozen clients at once. Optimizes for reusable control catalogs, multi-framework mapping that answers a control once, and templates that make client twelve cheaper than client one. Rejects single-tenant tools and frameworks bolted on as checklists.

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

Scored by The GRC Consultant

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

Asset & risk management depth

How this is scored

The ISMS core: asset inventory, risk methodology (identification, assessment, treatment), 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 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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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

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

Report an error

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

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 Secfix? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (10)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap developer.secfix.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →