whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Information Security

TrustCloud

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 TrustCloud S.L. · trustcloud.ai

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 Drafted IT Officer

Weighted verdict

SME IT admin who became the information security officer by an email from management. Optimizes for guided setup, sane defaults, plain-language controls and a tool that runs alongside the day job. Rejects platforms that assume a security team and a consultant on retainer.

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

Scored by The Drafted IT Officer

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 Drafted IT Officer

TrustRegister is a real risk backbone in the making: risk scoring, treatment status, residual risk, forecasting and ownership, with the risk register and application inventory wired into a Control Graph that links risks to controls. But I found no public information on a documented risk methodology, inherited protection needs across asset relations, or incident workflows with statutory clocks — the only incident-related item is a downloadable breach notification template, which is not incident handling. 1 3 4

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 Drafted IT Officer

Controls are linked to risks, policies and measures through a common control framework, auto-generated mappings count one satisfied control toward SOC 2, ISO 27001 and HIPAA at once, and remediation tasks are pushed into ServiceNow and Jira with human approval on every action. I found no public information on statement of applicability generation or internal audit workflows with findings management, and as the person who has to produce a SoA for the certifier, that silence matters to me. 4 5 7

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 Drafted IT Officer

Eighteen-plus out-of-the-box standards with unlimited custom frameworks, genuine one-control-many-frameworks mapping, and a customer case mapping 400 controls to NIST 800-53 — this is living, mapped coverage rather than parallel checklists. The list is US-heavy though, and I found no public information on NIS2, DORA or TISAX, which are the regimes my European reality runs on; the captured pages also give different figures for which mappings exist now versus which are coming soon. 4 6 7

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 Drafted IT Officer

Evidence collection is this vendor's showpiece: a Jira link is automatically pulled as an audit-ready ticket version instead of screenshots, every output is cited and auditable, and posture can be shared with auditors and the board with a regulator-specific report generated from one data set. I found no public information on revision-safe change history or dedicated auditor access roles, so I have no evidence it can answer "show me the state on date X" — the question my external auditor will actually ask. 1 5 7 9

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 Drafted IT Officer

This is the strongest area: 150+ integrations with named connectors for ServiceNow, Splunk, Jira, Snyk and KnowBe4, an API and SDK that reach on-premises and regulated environments, CMDB records and identity data among the sources, and automated evidence tests with human approval before anything acts. It feeds my existing tools instead of replacing them, which I like; I found no public information on webhooks or SSO and SCIM provisioning, which keeps it just short of behaving like infrastructure. 4 5 9 10 11

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 Drafted IT Officer

The only entity the pages themselves name is "TrustCloud Corporation" in the copyright line, while the vendor record names TrustCloud S.L. — and I found no public information on hosting location, data residency, a DPA, or any subprocessor list. For the system that would hold my entire risk register, I cannot tell from public pages whose law my security posture lives under, and that is disqualifying for me even before the price question. 4 6 7

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 Drafted IT Officer

A pricing link exists on the site, but no price figures, editions, user or entity boundaries, or setup fees appear anywhere I could see — the module family (TrustLens, TrustOps, TrustRegister, TrustHQ) is entirely unpriced in public. With a six-month go-live promise and a Fortune 500 target customer, this reads like a sales conversation per configuration, which is normal for this market but leaves me unable to compute anything. 1 7

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 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 Not determined — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined — 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 TrustCloud? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (11)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page trustcloud.ai Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.trustcloud.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.trustcloud.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.trustcloud.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.trustcloud.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.trustcloud.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.trustcloud.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.trustcloud.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.trustcloud.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.trustcloud.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.trustcloud.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →