Information Security
Secureframe
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Secureframe Inc. · secureframe.com
Compare with Vanta → 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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Secureframe, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
The scores
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
Automated asset scoping and read-only scanning of 150+ cloud services give real asset discovery, better than a spreadsheet import — but "Risk Management" and "Advanced Risk Management" are plan bullets with zero evidence of methodology, treatment ownership, protection-needs inheritance or incident workflows, and NIS2 24h/72h clocks appear nowhere in the evidence. A flat risk list fed by live integrations is exactly rubric level 3. 2 3
The GRC Consultant
Automated asset scoping and read-only agentless scanning across 150+ cloud services is a real estate feed, but "Risk Management" and "Advanced Risk Management" are bare plan labels — no methodology, no treatment tracking, no protection-needs inheritance, and not a word on incident workflows or NIS2 24h/72h clocks. I cannot build a client's ISMS core on feature names. 3 2
The Drafted IT Officer
"Risk Management" is a feature label on the plan chart and "Advanced Risk Management" an upsell, but the evidence shows no methodology, no treatment tracking, no protection-need inheritance and zero incident handling — no NIS2 anywhere, let alone 24h/72h clocks. The only verifiable ISMS meat is automated asset scoping rules and agentless cloud scanning. 2 3
The Lead Auditor
"Risk Management" is a feature name and "Advanced Risk Management" an upsell label, with genuine asset-side automation — agentless read-only scanning and monitoring of 150+ cloud services. But the evidence is silent on risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-need inheritance, and incident workflows with statutory clocks, and I do not credit a label. That lands between the flat-list anchor at 3 and the configurable-matrix anchor at 5, with the automated estate visibility tipping it up. 3 2
The Evidence Integrator
"Risk Management" is a feature bullet and "Advanced Risk Management" a paywall; automated asset scoping does pull the asset inventory from the live estate, but the evidence is silent on risk methodology, protection-need inheritance, treatment tracking, and any incident workflow — no statutory NIS2 24h/72h clock appears anywhere. A flat risk list fed by live discovery, no more. 2
The Skeptic
"Risk Management" and "Advanced Risk Management" appear as plan line items and asset scoping is automated, but the evidence shows no risk methodology, no treatment tracking, no protection-needs inheritance, and not one word about incident handling or statutory clocks. A bare feature label is not an ISMS backbone — this sits between the flat-risk-list anchor and the configurable-matrix anchor. 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
Custom frameworks/controls/tests and policy management exist, and common-control overlap stats suggest controls map across regimes, but there is no SoA generation, no measure ownership or delegation, and no internal audit or findings management in any confirmed fact. Automated control testing lifts it one notch above a status-field checklist; the "Compliance Framework 1 1" comparison even hints framework scope is gated per plan. 2 3
The GRC Consultant
Custom frameworks, controls and tests with per-plan limits (1 vs unlimited) plus the common-controls overlap stats (>25% ISO 27001, >35% NIST CSF) gesture at operable control content and answer-once mapping. But nothing evidences SoA generation, measure ownership with delegation, or internal audit workflows — this reads as control tracking, not a living control fabric. 3 2
The Drafted IT Officer
Custom frameworks, controls and tests plus continuous automated control assessment through integrations means controls aren't a dead checklist — the tests give them live status. But there's no SoA generation, no measure owners or delegation, and no internal-audit findings workflow evidenced anywhere, and as the person who has to produce a SoA for ISO 27001, that silence decides it. 2 3
The Lead Auditor
Custom frameworks, controls and tests plus common-control overlap figures across SOC 2/ISO 27001/NIST CSF show controls are mapped rather than re-answered per framework — respectable. But there is no SoA generation, no control-to-risk linkage, no measure ownership, and no internal-audit or findings workflow anywhere in the evidence, and "Compliance Framework: 1" per plan suggests frameworks are metered. The applicability statement I need produced from live control status is entirely unevidenced. 3 2
The Evidence Integrator
"Custom Frameworks, Controls, and Tests" and "Custom Automated Tests" give a catalog whose status is continuously testable, but nothing evidences SoA generation, measure ownership with delegation and escalation, or a controls-to-risks link. A checklist that executes automated tests is still a checklist, not an operable control fabric. 2
The Skeptic
Custom Frameworks, Controls and Tests plus custom automated tests are evidenced, and the common-controls overlap percentages hint at real cross-framework mapping. But no SoA generation, no measure ownership or due dates, no control-to-risk linkage, and no internal audit workflow appear anywhere — a checklist with tests, not a control fabric. 3 2
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
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, NIST CSF, CMMC and FedRAMP are all evidenced with partial one-control-many-frameworks mapping via common controls, which matches "major regimes for its market, partial cross-mapping". But as the person carrying NIS2 exposure: NIS2, DORA and IT-Grundschutz are absent from every confirmed fact, and TISAX exists only in vendor boilerplate with no E-numbered substance. 3 4 2
The GRC Consultant
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, TISAX, NIST CSF and genuinely deep CMMC tooling (SSP, POA&M, SPRS tracker) plus FedRAMP — broad for the US market, but NIS2, DORA and BSI IT-Grundschutz are absent from the evidence entirely, which is disqualifying for my European clients. And the plan table shows "Compliance Framework: 1" on both tiers, meaning multi-compliance costs extra per framework rather than riding one data basis. 3 4 2
The Drafted IT Officer
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR and TISAX per the vendor's own positioning, a dedicated CMMC Defense plan with SSP/POA&M, and cross-framework overlap stats (25-35% against SOC 2/ISO/NIST CSF) that show at least partial one-control-many-frameworks mapping. But NIS2, DORA and BSI IT-Grundschutz are absent entirely, and those are exactly the regimes that bite a European SME. 2 3
The Lead Auditor
A broad shelf — SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, NIST CSF, CMMC, FedRAMP, TX-RAMP, custom frameworks — with cross-mapping actually evidenced by the overlap percentages, not just claimed. But the coverage skews hard US: NIS2, DORA, TISAX and Grundschutz appear nowhere in the confirmed facts, so for a European operator the statutory layer simply is not there. 3 4 2
The Evidence Integrator
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR and NIST CSF with published common-control overlaps of 25–35% and a dedicated CMMC Defense tier carrying SSP, POA&M and SPRS tracking show the major regimes for its US market with genuine partial one-control-many-frameworks mapping. NIS2, DORA and BSI IT-Grundschutz are absent from the evidence entirely, which caps it at the content-pack bench. 3 2
The Skeptic
SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR and NIST CSF overlap on the frameworks page, plus genuine CMMC tooling (SSP, POA&M, SPRS tracker) in the Defense plan — the major regimes for its US-facing market. But NIS2, DORA and BSI IT-Grundschutz are entirely absent, and the pricing table's "Compliance Framework 1" row for both tiers is an ambiguous restriction I don't like the smell of. 3 2
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
Continuous automated control assessment through 150+ integrations plus named Evidence Collection means evidence gathers itself — more than ad-hoc attachments. But revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, evidence packs and any answer to "show me the state on date X" are silent, and I cannot credit audit readiness I cannot time-stamp. 2 3
The GRC Consultant
Evidence Collection is a named feature and continuous automated testing feeds it, which beats screenshot exports. But the evidence is silent on revision-safe history, auditor access roles, and scoped evidence packs — I have no basis to believe this system can answer a certifier's "show me the state on date X". 3 2
The Drafted IT Officer
Evidence Collection is a named feature and the 150+ integrations run "automatic, continuous security control assessment", which beats screenshots-and-hope. Still no revision-safe history, no audit-scoped evidence packs, no auditor access role and no answer to "show me the state on date X" — assembling the audit file looks like my weekend either way. 2 3
The Lead Auditor
"Evidence Collection" is a named feature and 150+/300+ integrations driving "automatic, continuous security control assessment" mean evidence is gathered rather than re-typed — that much is real. But the evidence says nothing about revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or any "state on date X" reconstruction, and that silence is information: nothing here proves a trail that wasn't assembled the week before the audit. Below the versioned-records anchor at 5, above ad-hoc attachment at 3. 3 2
The Evidence Integrator
"Evidence Collection" as a named feature plus "automatic, continuous security control assessment" through 150+ integrations means evidence gathers itself from the live estate rather than being re-typed — the right half of audit readiness. But revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, and any "state on date X" answer are all unevidenced, so defensible proof beyond collected evidence remains a claim. 3 2
The Skeptic
"Evidence Collection" and "Trust Center" are plan features and control assessment is continuous and automated across integrations. But the evidence is silent on revision-safe history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, and any answer to "show me the state on date X" — silence on the hard parts is the finding. 3 2
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
300+ native integrations, agentless read-only scanning of 150+ cloud services across AWS/GCP/Azure, a public API reference, and SSO/SCIM are a genuine connector set with automated evidence tests. rubric level 8 wants ticketing/CMDB/webhooks and directory import individually named — none confirmed — and SSO/SCIM is paywalled to the top tier, so 7. 3 2
The GRC Consultant
300+ native integrations, 150+ monitored cloud services via read-only agentless access, SSO/SCIM, custom automated tests, a documented API reference, and "automatic, continuous security control assessment" — this is genuine toil removal against the live estate and where the product earns its keep. Named connector classes (ticketing, CMDB, webhooks) aren't itemized, so it stops short of the top anchor. 3 2
The Drafted IT Officer
300+ native integrations, documented API, SSO/SCIM and unlimited custom automated tests on the top tier, plus agentless read-only scanning across AWS/GCP/Azure — the estate feeds the tool instead of me re-typing it, which is exactly what a one-person ISMS needs. Held under 8 because ticketing/CMDB connectors and webhooks are never named, and SSO/SCIM is paywalled to Complete. 2 3
The Lead Auditor
300+ native integrations, agentless read-only scanning across AWS/GCP/Azure, custom automated tests, SSO/SCIM and a documented API reference — a genuine connector set feeding continuous control assessment from the live estate. Held below the top only because API parity, webhooks and event streams are unevidenced, and SSO/SCIM sits behind the top tier. 3 2
The Evidence Integrator
This is not a data island: 150+/300+ native integrations, 150+ monitored cloud services across AWS/GCP/Azure via agentless read-only access, continuous automated control assessment, a documented API reference, and SSO/SCIM. 3 2
The Skeptic
The substance is real: agentless read-only scanning across AWS/GCP/Azure, 150+ monitored cloud services, SSO/SCIM, custom integrations and published API docs. Two strikes keep it off the top anchor: the vendor can't keep its own story straight ("150+ integrations" vs "300+ Native Integrations"), and no ticketing/CMDB connector, webhook, or event stream is named anywhere. 3 2
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
A San Francisco entity hosts my risk register on AWS ("United States / London") with eight of nine published subprocessors under US jurisdiction, including OpenAI for LLM capability; no DPA, no named EU data centers, and data residency explicitly unconfirmed on the vendor's own pages. The published subprocessor list earns one point above zero; the chain is otherwise squarely within CLOUD Act reach end to end. 4
The GRC Consultant
San Francisco entity, hosting on AWS US/London, and a subprocessor chain that is almost entirely US — including OpenAI as a content-touching AI processor — putting my clients' risk registers under CLOUD Act reach. No DPA and no confirmed EU-default residency anywhere in the evidence; for a European ISMS this is close to disqualifying. 4 5
The Drafted IT Officer
San Francisco entity, hosting location not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and a published subprocessor list that is almost entirely US — AWS (US/London), Cloudflare, DataDog, Sentry, and OpenAI as an AI processor on the chain. No evidenced DPA and no EU-default hosting; my company's risk register would sit squarely under US CLOUD Act reach. 4
The Lead Auditor
A San Francisco entity hosting on AWS US (London secondary), with eight of nine published subprocessors — including OpenAI on the AI features — under US jurisdiction; the vendor's own captured pages never confirm EU-default residency, ownership, or a DPA. For the system holding a European company's risk register this is near the bottom; only the public subprocessor list keeps it off the floor. 4 5
The Evidence Integrator
A San Francisco entity hosting on AWS US with nine listed subprocessors — Cloudflare, DataDog, Intercom, OpenAI, Sentry, Twilio all in the United States — puts the risk register itself squarely in CLOUD Act reach. The published subprocessor list is the one clean item; no DPA, no EU-default hosting (London is a co-location footnote at best), and OpenAI touching data. 1 4
The Skeptic
US vendor with US-default hosting; the subprocessor list is at least public, but nearly every processor sits in the United States — including OpenAI providing "AI platform and large language model capability" over what could be your risk register content. No EU-default region, no DPA in evidence; the only European hint is AWS "United States / London" hosting. Your security posture would live under US jurisdictional reach end to end. 4 5
Pricing transparency
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
Exactly one number is public — Fundamentals "starting at" $7,000/year — while Complete and Defense carry feature lists with no prices, the workspace add-on is unpriced, and the one-framework-per-plan comparison implies further scale steps nobody can compute. rubric level 3 verbatim: entry price exists, real total is a sales conversation. 2
The GRC Consultant
One honest anchor — Fundamentals starting at $7,000/year, billing period stated — but Complete, Defense, the Additional Workspaces add-on and any scale steps carry no numbers, so the real invoice for a multi-framework, multi-entity client is incomputable from public pages. Standard for the market, still a 3. 2 2
The Drafted IT Officer
One real number exists — Fundamentals at $7,000/year — and then Complete, the Defense plan, the second compliance framework (each plan includes exactly one) and the workspace add-on are all unpriced. The actual invoice for my 100-person company is a sales conversation, not a two-minute exercise. 2
The Lead Auditor
One real number exists — Fundamentals starting at $7,000/year with billing period stated — alongside a detailed tier comparison. But Complete, Defense, the second and third framework, and the workspace add-on are all unpriced, so the true invoice for any multi-framework buyer is a sales conversation; rubric level 3 verbatim. 2 2
The Evidence Integrator
Exactly one real number exists: Fundamentals starting at $7,000/year with the billing period stated. Complete, the CMMC Defense tier and the Additional Workspaces add-on carry no prices at all, so the actual invoice for anything above entry level is incomputable from public pages. 2
The Skeptic
Fundamentals at $7,000/year is a real number with a billing period, which is more than many offer. But Complete, Defense and the workspaces add-on carry no prices at all, so the actual invoice for anything beyond the entry tier is a sales conversation — squarely the incomputable-total anchor. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 24 Aug 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, Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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 pricing 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
- 19 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
- 10 compliance 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
- 7 legal 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
- 4 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
- 2 subprocessors 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 integrations 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. 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
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (16)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
- 3 GDPR framework page secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security/trust page trust.secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy policy secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Terms of service secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap support.secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 16 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap secureframe.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →