Information Security
verinice
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by SerNet GmbH · verinice.com
Compare with ISMS.online → Compare with HiScout GRC Suite → 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 panel's verdict
verinice is an ISMS tool from SerNet Service Network GmbH of Göttingen, offered as SerNet-operated SaaS and a self-managed on-premises subscription on GPLv3 open-source code, in use since 2007. The bench scores it strongest on information security management and framework coverage, both 7-8: a documented Grundschutz methodology with automatic protection-needs inheritance and NIS2 incident deadlines of 24 hours, 72 hours and one month, and six domains — IT-Grundschutz with BSI Standards 200-1 through 200-4, ISO/IEC 27001 through 27005 plus 22301, TISAX, GDPR and NIS2 — sharing one object model, with the German NIS2UmsuCG deviations marked. Weakest are integrations and automation at 1-2, where only internal automation appears, and audit readiness at 3-5. Judges spread on sovereignty, 4-6, weighing the open-source on-premises path against no public information on cloud hosting or ownership, and on controls, 4-6, where operable object modeling meets no public information on statement-of-applicability generation or findings management. Pricing transparency stands at 4-5 on bundle prices quoted from 5.750 € / year and from 8.530 € / year; the captured pages give 30 versus 60 days for the NIS2 evaluation.
Speaks for it
- Information security management scores 7-8 for a documented Grundschutz methodology with automatic protection-needs inheritance and the NIS2 statutory clocks of 24 hours, 72 hours and one month.
- Framework coverage scores 7-8 across IT-Grundschutz with BSI Standards 200-1 through 200-4, ISO/IEC 27001 through 27005 plus 22301, TISAX, GDPR and NIS2, with the German implementation law's deviations integrated and marked.
- A self-managed on-premises subscription on GPLv3 open-source code under a German GmbH gives a sovereign deployment path; sovereignty scores 4-6.
- Public bundle prices from 5.750 € / year for the ISO 27001 and IT-Grundschutz bundles and from 8.530 € / year for ISO + IT-Grundschutz, with a free 60-day cloud evaluation.
- Stated certification paths to an ISO 27001 certificate based on IT-Grundschutz and a BSI Testat under Basis-Absicherung, with a partner network for certifications and audits.
Held against it
- Integrations and automation score 1-2, with only internal automation shown and no public information on a documented API, directory or CMDB import, ticketing connectors or single sign-on.
- Audit readiness scores 3-5, with certification and audit support riding on the partner network and no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence packs or auditor access roles.
- Controls and statement of applicability scores 4-6, with no public information on statement-of-applicability generation from live control status, measure delegation with escalation or internal-audit findings management.
- No public information on risk acceptance with named ownership or on executive-level risk reporting, which judges cite as the gap below the top band on information security management.
- No public information on where verinice.cloud hosts customer data, on a product data processing agreement or on a cloud subprocessor list, with vendor ownership listed as unknown and a San Francisco office named.
Best for
- You build an ISMS on BSI IT-Grundschutz methodology toward an ISO 27001 certificate or a BSI Testat and want the methodology as linked objects with a realization and audit plan.
- Your obligations are the German and European stack — IT-Grundschutz, ISO 27001, TISAX, GDPR and NIS2 with the German implementation law's marked deviations — on one shared data basis.
- You need your risk register on your own infrastructure, which the self-managed on-premises subscription on GPLv3 open-source code provides.
- You can accept manual data entry through input masks and partner-led support for certifications and audits.
Avoid if
- You need the register fed automatically from your live IT estate — directory, CMDB, ticketing or scanner connections — where integrations and automation scored 1-2.
- You expect the product itself to preserve audit evidence, since audit readiness scored 3-5 with evidence assembly expected to remain manual.
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
This is a real risk backbone: an ISMS built on BSI IT-Grundschutz methodology with automatic protection-needs inheritance across asset relations, object types running from target objects through requirements and measures to threats and risks, and NIS2 incident handling wired to the statutory clocks — report after 24 hours, situation report after 72 hours, final report after one month. Risk management per NIS2 Article 21 is integrated into both the Grundschutz and ISO 27001 domains, and ISO 27005 sits in the covered standards. What I could not find is risk acceptance with a named owner — who accepted which residual risk stays unevidenced. 6 7 8
The GRC Consultant
A genuine risk backbone: BSI IT-Grundschutz methodology end to end with structure analysis, protection-needs definition, automatic protection-need inheritance across asset relations, threats and risks as first-class objects, and NIS2 incident workflows carrying the statutory 24-hour and 72-hour clocks. I found no public information on risk acceptance with named ownership or executive-level risk reporting, so I stop short of the top bench. 6 7 8
The Drafted IT Officer
This is a genuine risk backbone: the Grundschutz domain captures target objects, threats, risks and measures, computes automatic protection-needs inheritance, and offers the Basis-, Standard- and Kernabsicherung paths a drafted officer like me can actually follow. The NIS2 domain names the statutory clocks — report after 24 hours, situation report after 72 — and adds supply-chain documentation and TOM capture. I found no public information on risk acceptance with named owners, which is the one piece of the chain the pages leave dark. 6 7 8
The Lead Auditor
The Grundschutz backbone is real: structure analysis with automatic inheritance of protection needs, object types for target objects, requirements, measures, threats and risks, and NIS2 incident deadlines of 24 hours, 72 hours and one month with the German implementation law's deviations incorporated. I found no public information on risk acceptance with named ownership or an export to the reporting authority, which keeps it out of the top band. 6 7
The Evidence Integrator
This is a documented-methodology product: automatic protection-needs inheritance in the structure analysis, ISO/IEC 27005 among the covered standards, NIS2 incident handling carrying the 24-hour, 72-hour and one-month statutory clocks, and a BCM domain for continuity. We found no public information on risk acceptance with named ownership or executive-level risk reporting, so the chain stops short of what a certifier reads upward. 6 7 8
The Skeptic
The BSI methodology is implemented as real objects — targets, requirements, measures, threats, risks — with automatic protection-needs inheritance and supporting structural analysis, and the NIS2 domain carries the statutory clocks (report after 24 hours, situation report after 72 hours, final report after one month). Risk management per NIS2 Article 21 is documented as integrated into both the Grundschutz and ISO 27001 domains. We found no public information on risk acceptance with named ownership or executive-level risk reporting. 6 7 8
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 Grundschutz object model ties requirements, measures, threats and risks into one fabric, a realization and audit plan is part of the workflow, TOMs are captured per business process, and the vendor states a BSI Testat as well as an ISO 27001 certificate based on IT-Grundschutz are achievable with the tool — an operable control side, not a checklist. I found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation from live control status, on measure ownership with delegation and escalation, or on internal-audit findings management. 6 7 8
The GRC Consultant
The control side is properly modeled — requirements, measures and module implementation with an implementation and audit plan, TOMs captured per business process, and the Basis-/Standard-/Kernabsicherung choice as a structured applicability decision — but I found no public information on SoA generation from live control status, measure ownership with delegation and escalation, or internal-audit findings management. 6 7 8
The Drafted IT Officer
Requirements and measures exist as first-class objects with input masks, TOMs are captured per business process, and a Realisierungs- und Prüfplan plus the stated path to a BSI Testat and an ISO 27001 certification tell me the control side is operable rather than a consultant's spreadsheet. I found no public information on a statement of applicability generated from live control status, on measure ownership with escalation, or on an internal-audit findings workflow, so I expect manual assembly when the auditor calls. 6 7
The Lead Auditor
Requirements, measures, threats and risks live as linked object types with building-block implementation, and the vendor states a BSI Testat under Basis-Absicherung and an ISO 27001 certification are achievable with the tool. I found no public information on generating a statement of applicability from live control status, measure ownership with delegation and escalation, or internal audit findings workflows. 6 7 8
The Evidence Integrator
Requirements, measures, threats and risks exist as object types with input masks, a realization and audit plan can be produced, and the Basis-, Standard- and Kernabsicherung approaches drive applicability through to real BSI Testat and ISO 27001 certification paths. We found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation from live control status, measure delegation with escalation, or findings management, so the control side reads as operable but manually assembled. 6 7
The Skeptic
Requirements and measures are first-class objects with module-implementation tracking, basic security checks, an implementation-and-review plan, and per-process TOM capture in the NIS2 domain. We found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation, measure ownership and delegation, or internal audit workflows with findings management — for a tool positioned at ISO 27001 certification, that is the part of the fabric the pages never show. 6 7 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
Every regime that matters to a European operator is present — BSI IT-Grundschutz with BSI Standards 200-1 through 200-4, the ISO 27000 series including 27005 and 22301, TISAX, NIS2 and GDPR — and the domains share one object model rather than living as separate checklists: NIS2 risk management per Article 21 is integrated into the Grundschutz and ISO 27001 domains, and the deviations of the German NIS2 implementation law are already integrated and marked, maintenance I can actually see. We found no public information on DORA or SOC 2 coverage. 1 6 7 8
The GRC Consultant
Six regimes operationalized for its market — IT-Grundschutz with BSI Standards 200-1 to 200-4, ISO 27001 through 27005 and 22301, TISAX, NIS2, BCM and GDPR — with licensed BSI and ISO content, and visible maintenance as the German NIS2 implementation act's deviations are already integrated. NIS2 risk requirements are woven into the Grundschutz and ISO domains rather than shipped as a separate island, but explicit one-control-many-frameworks mapping is only implied, and I found no public information on DORA or SOC 2. 1 6 7 8
The Drafted IT Officer
Six regimes on one tool — BSI IT-Grundschutz with BSI standards 200-1/2/3 and 200-4, ISO 27001 through 27005 plus 22301, TISAX, NIS2 and GDPR — with the German NIS2 implementation law's deviations already integrated, which is the visible maintenance I want when a regime moves. NIS2 risk management is stated as integrated into the Grundschutz and ISO domains rather than being a separate island. I found no public information on DORA or SOC 2 content or on a documented catalog update cadence. 1 6 7 8
The Lead Auditor
Six regimes live in one product — Grundschutz with licensed BSI content and BSI Standards 200-1 through 200-4, the ISO 27000 family through 27005 plus ISO 22301, TISAX, NIS2, GDPR and BCM — and NIS2 risk management is stated as integrated into the Grundschutz and ISO domains rather than answered as a separate checklist. I found no public information on DORA or a documented catalog update cadence beyond the NIS2 example, so this is not the living multi-compliance fabric of the top band. 1 6 7 8
The Evidence Integrator
Coverage is broad and current for its market: ISO/IEC 27001 through 27005 plus 22301, BSI IT-Grundschutz with BSI Standards 200-1 to 200-4, TISAX, GDPR, and an NIS2 domain that already integrates and marks the deviations of the German implementation law. The NIS2 domain ships in every bundle of the new generation, pointing to one shared data basis rather than fresh islands; we found no public information on SOC 2, DORA or a documented catalog update cadence. 6 7 8
The Skeptic
The German stack is deep and current: IT-Grundschutz with BSI Standards 200-1 through 200-4, the ISO 27000 series including 27005, TISAX, NIS2 with the German NIS2UmsuCG deviations marked, GDPR and BCM. Cross-framework work is evidenced rather than just logo-claimed — ISO 27001 certification on the basis of IT-Grundschutz, NIS2 risk requirements folded into both domains — and the German-law integration is visible maintenance as a regime moved. We found no public information on DORA or SOC 2 coverage, per-industry profiles, or a documented update cadence. 1 6 7 8
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
A BSI Testat and an ISO 27001 certification on the basis of IT-Grundschutz are stated as achievable with verinice, and a realization and audit plan is part of the method, so the documents an auditor accepts are producible. But we found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence attached per control, auditor access roles, or an answer to "show me the state on date X" — without those, assembling a full audit file still costs days. 7
The GRC Consultant
Certification targets are explicitly supported — ISO 27001 on a Grundschutz basis and a BSI Testat in Basis-Absicherung, backed by a partner network for audits — and the implementation and audit plan gives the auditor something to walk. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or a defensible state-on-date-X answer, which is what this criterion pays for. 6 7
The Drafted IT Officer
The vendor states a BSI Testat and an ISO 27001 certification on the basis of IT-Grundschutz are possible with verinice, and a partner network stands by for certifications and audits — that proves audits pass, not that evidence is systematized. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence collected per control, standard report generators or auditor access roles, so assembling the full audit file still looks like days of craft. 6 7
The Lead Auditor
The captured pages evidence audit-facing output of the Grundschutz kind — a realization and audit plan, stated certification paths to a BSI Testat and ISO 27001, and a partner network that accompanies certifications and audits. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence attachments per control, audit-scoped report packs or auditor access roles, and I do not credit a change trail no page documents. 1 6 7
The Evidence Integrator
The tool is presented as certification-capable — ISO 27001 on the basis of IT-Grundschutz or a BSI Testat — with a realization and audit plan, a partner network for certifications and audits, and NIS2 reporting keyed to statutory deadlines. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles or reconstructing the state on a given date, which is what makes proof defensible rather than assembled. 6 7
The Skeptic
The captured pages position the tool inside real certifications — a BSI Testat under Basis-Absicherung and ISO 27001 based on IT-Grundschutz — with use since 2007 across critical infrastructure, plus contract and document management in the NIS2 domain. But the certification and audit support rides heavily on the partner network, which is services rather than proof the product generates, and we found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, management reports or auditor access roles. 1 6 7
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
The captured pages give me nothing on the question that decides this criterion: no documented API, no directory, CMDB or ticketing connectors, no scanner feeds, no automated evidence collection. The fully open-source code base makes self-built integration plausible, but plausible is not evidenced. 8
The GRC Consultant
I found no public information on a REST API, directory or CMDB import, ticketing connectors, SSO/SCIM, webhooks or automated evidence collection anywhere in the captured pages. The fully open-source release since 2006 is real, but open source is not evidence of an integration surface. 8 2
The Drafted IT Officer
The captured pages describe domains, bundles and shopping portals, and I found no public information on an API, directory or CMDB import, ticketing or scanner connectors, SSO or webhooks. For someone who would otherwise re-type the whole asset list by hand, that is a real cost on top of the day job. The open-source license lets me build my own bridge, but nothing published says one exists or is maintained. 1 7 8
The Lead Auditor
I found no public information on directory import, CMDB or ticketing connections, a documented API, single sign-on, or automated evidence collection — nothing on the captured pages describes the platform feeding from the live IT estate. The fully open-source codebase is the only mitigant: it is inspectable rather than a black box, but publication of source is not evidence of integrations existing. 7 8
The Evidence Integrator
The only automation the captured pages show is internal: automatic protection-needs inheritance. We found no public information on a REST API, directory or CMDB import, ticketing or cloud connectors, single sign-on or automated evidence tests, so by everything captured the register is fed by hand through input masks; the open-source code could be inspected, but no page shows the platform wired to a live estate. 7
The Skeptic
The only automation the captured pages evidence is internal to the tool: automatic protection-needs inheritance and methodology checks. We found no public information on a REST API, directory or CMDB import, ticketing or scanner connectors, SSO/SCIM, or automated evidence collection — for a product sold both as SaaS and on-premises, that silence is conspicuous. 7 8
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 German GmbH under GDPR with the whole code base open source and a self-operated on-prem variant means I can keep my risk register inside my own walls under German law — jurisdictional control I can act on, not a promise. The open questions: we found no public information on where verinice.cloud hosts customer data, on the vendor's ownership structure, or on any subprocessor list for the cloud product beyond PayPal and Stripe for payments and Matomo for web analytics. 2 4 7 8
The GRC Consultant
The sovereign deployment path is genuine — German entity under German law since 1997, a self-operated on-premises subscription, fully open GPLv3 source, and a named German supervisory authority — and payment processors stay outside the product. But the captured pages do not confirm where verinice.cloud data is hosted, I found no public DPA or product subprocessor list for the cloud service, ownership is undocumented, and the company lists a San Francisco office. 3 4 5 8
The Drafted IT Officer
A Göttingen GmbH operates the cloud itself under GDPR and BDSG with the Lower Saxony data protection commissioner named, and the on-premises GPLv3 option means my risk register can stay entirely on my own servers — that is the story I want. But I found no public information on where verinice.cloud is hosted or on its subprocessors, the ownership is unknown to me, and the vendor keeps a San Francisco office, so the cloud chain is only half documented. 2 4 5 7
The Lead Auditor
A German GmbH in Göttingen under the Lower Saxony supervisory authority, GDPR and BDSG as the stated benchmark, and — the decisive lever — a purchasable on-premises subscription plus open source, so the risk register can live entirely in the operator's own infrastructure. For the cloud offer, however, I found no public information on hosting locations, a subprocessor list or a data processing agreement, and the vendor itself lists a San Francisco office. 2 4 5 8
The Evidence Integrator
A German entity operates the SaaS and an on-premises, self-managed subscription exists on fully open-source code, which gives a genuinely sovereign deployment path, and the subprocessors named — payment and web analytics with anonymised IPs — are website-side rather than content-touching. We found no public information on where verinice.cloud data is hosted, on named data centers, a customer DPA or a subprocessor list for the service itself, and the vendor lists a San Francisco office. 3 4 5 7
The Skeptic
The entity is German (SerNet Service Network GmbH, Göttingen, commercial register HR B 2816), the code is fully open source under a GPLv3 provenance since 2006, and a self-operated on-premises variant exists — genuine jurisdictional levers. But the "only sovereign ISMS tool" claim outruns the published record: we found no public information on where verinice.cloud is hosted, a published data processing agreement or TOMs for the product itself, or the cloud's subprocessors, and ownership is undocumented while the vendor lists an office in San Francisco. 3 4 5 7 8
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
Three bundles carry real annual figures with contents itemized — ISO 27001 Bundle from 5.750 € / year, IT-Grundschutz Bundle from 5.750 € / year, ISO + IT-Grundschutz from 8.530 € / year — and evaluations up to 60 days are free, purchasable self-service via the cloud portal and the on-prem shop. The figures are floor prices with no public scale steps, and the NIS2 standalone subscription and the additional modules show no prices on the captured pages. 2 6 7
The GRC Consultant
Three bundles carry real public annual figures — ISO 27001 from 5.750 € / year, IT-Grundschutz from 5.750 € / year, ISO + IT-Grundschutz from 8.530 € / year — with lengthy free evaluations in the cloud. These are "from" prices with no user or entity scale steps, no module add-on prices and no price on the standalone NIS2 subscription, so the real invoice for a given organization is not computable from the public pages alone. 2 6 7
The Drafted IT Officer
The three bundles carry real public numbers — ISO 27001 Bundle "from 5.750 € / year", IT-Grundschutz Bundle "from 5.750 € / year", ISO + IT-Grundschutz "from 8.530 € / year" — plus a free 60-day evaluation in the cloud before anyone signs anything. The "from" hides the scale basis, and I found no public prices for the add-on modules or the standalone NIS2 subscription, so the real invoice for my hundred-person shop isn't yet a two-minute exercise. 2 6 7
The Lead Auditor
The three bundles carry public annual from-prices — quoted as "from 5.750 € / year", "from 8.530 € / year" and "from 5.750 € / year" — with a free evaluation and self-service purchase portals for cloud and on-prem. The scale basis behind "from" is not stated, the captured pages show no price for the standalone NIS2 subscription or the additional modules, and they give different figures for the free NIS2 evaluation length, so the real invoice is not yet computable. 2 6 8
The Evidence Integrator
Three bundles carry public annual figures — ISO 27001 Bundle from 5.750 € / year, IT-Grundschutz Bundle from 5.750 € / year, ISO + IT-Grundschutz from 8.530 € / year — with a 60-day free evaluation and self-service portals that separate software from partner consulting. The standalone NIS2 subscription and the additional modules carry no public price and we found no public information on user or entity boundaries, so the real invoice is not computable; the captured pages also give different figures, 30 versus 60 days, for the NIS2 evaluation. 2 6 8
The Skeptic
Three bundles carry real annual figures quoted as from 5.750 € / year and from 8.530 € / year, evaluations are free, purchase runs through self-service portals, and consulting lives in a partner network rather than inside the software price. The real invoice stays incomputable: these are "from" figures with no user or entity boundaries stated, the standalone NIS2 subscription carries no public price, and the captured pages give different figures for the NIS2 evaluation period — 30 days on one page, 60 days on another. 2 6 7 8
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | Incorporated in DE | 3/3 pts | 3 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 17 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — 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.
- 5 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
- 4 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
- 1 data 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Product homepage verinice.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Shop/pricing for on-prem eu.verinice.shop Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint verinice.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy (SerNet) www.sernet.de Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Vendor company site www.sernet.de Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap verinice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap verinice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap verinice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →