Home / Compare
Comparing MyRISK · read this before you score a feature list
Most tools on your shortlist answer a different question.
If you are comparing risk and compliance tools, the useful question is not which one has more modules. It is which job you are funding — holding a control position, passing a certification, running a register, putting a number on a loss, or being able to explain a decision afterwards. This page says what each category does well, where MyRISK sits next to it, and when the honest answer is that something else fits better.
How to read this page
Three rules we held ourselves to
Everything said here about another product is quoted from that company’s own published pages, read on 18 September 2026 and linked so you can check it. Where a page does not mention a capability, this page says only that it is not stated there — which is not the same as saying the product cannot do it. Ask them; they will know better than we do.
Nobody is scored on features here. A feature table with our own column filled in is marketing rather than comparison. What follows is about which job each category is built for.
Products move. Two of the names below changed materially in the year before this page was written, and one of them changed company. A comparison is only as current as its date.
The alternatives, fairly stated
Seven categories, and what each is genuinely good at
Enterprise GRC and integrated risk
Broad platforms you may already own
ServiceNow IRM describes mapping regulations to controls, monitoring risk continuously and automating remediation across critical services. 6clicks now presents itself as “Sovereign GRC Infrastructure” for government, defence and critical infrastructure, with modules from enterprise risk and vendor risk to an ISMS and responsible AI. Protecht, Sydney-based, brings “risk, compliance, incidents, controls, audit, vendors, cyber and resilience together in a single AI-enabled platform”.
MyRISK Core belongs in this comparison. Core holds controls, evidence, owners, reporting and sign-off as an enterprise GRC position in its own right — not as a lighter alternative to one. Where these platforms are already funded and embedded, we will say so on the first call; where the job is to make one control set answer several frameworks, compare Core directly. Trace is a different purchase. It records the decisions taken around the controls a platform holds, and sits alongside any of them rather than instead of them.
Trust and compliance automation
Certification platforms that now carry a register
Vanta states that you can “track all of your risks in a single place — assign an owner, score inherent risk, set a treatment plan, and score residual risk”, link vendor-review findings to risk scenarios, and take a moment-in-time snapshot of the register. This category is strong at certifications, questionnaires and evidence for an audit, and the risk module is usually already paid for.
MyRISK Core does compliance and certification automation, and does one thing this category does not. Core holds a control once and matches it automatically against any framework you work to — ISO 27001, NIST CSF, the Essential Eight and the ISM among the common ones, and any framework you supply that is not on that list. One control set answers all of them instead of being re-evidenced against each. Where several frameworks apply to the same estate, that is the comparison worth running. What we do not do is lead with the certificate. If a first SOC 2 or a single ISO 27001 audit is the whole job, this category is built around exactly that and will get you there faster.
Risk registers and ERM software
Structured registers and workflow, at lower complexity
Register and ERM tools give you a structured list, owners, ratings and workflow, usually faster and at less cost than an enterprise platform. This category is consolidating: the Camms products, long familiar in Australia and New Zealand, now sit with Riskonnect — “Riskonnect and Camms have joined forces” — and the former Camms product URLs redirect there.
Core carries a register that stands on its own — structured, owned, rated and reportable — so if a register is what you are buying, compare it here rather than ruling MyRISK out. Essentials is not register software and is not sold as a cheaper one. Most organisations we meet already have a register; what they do not have is a rhythm that makes owners, blockers and stalled actions visible between meetings. If a structured register at the lowest possible complexity is the only thing missing, this category is the shorter route.
Quantification and exposure
Tools that put a number on it
SAFE describes a cyber-risk-quantification scoping engine and a continuous exposure workflow across discovery, prioritisation, validation and mobilisation, including an exception capability it says governs risk acceptance through documented justification.
Core has a FAIR engine, with full FAIR functionality coming. Today the depth of a dedicated quantification programme is Consulting work, and where a defensible financial loss figure is the decision you need, use this category or ours. The number and the decision stay separate things: quantification says what a scenario is worth, and a decision record preserves why the approval that followed was reasonable, who held authority for it, and what has changed since.
AI assistants
Copilots, chat assistants and platform summaries
Fast, inexpensive and genuinely useful for drafting, searching and summarising what is already written down. Every platform above now ships some version of it, and so do the general assistants your team already uses.
A generated summary is drafting, not proof. It can describe what a record says; it cannot establish what existed and was relied on at the time a decision was made. MyRISK uses AI the same way — to extract and draft inside a governed record, never as the evidence itself.
Consulting, audit and advisers
People who already know your organisation
Internal audit, a risk adviser, a vCISO, a large firm or a cyber boutique. Judgement, capacity, brand and board confidence, with nothing to implement.
A report diagnoses; it does not keep running. MyRISK Consulting is fixed-scope and built to leave an operating pattern behind rather than a document. Where scale, a broad transformation or an assurance opinion is what you need, that is a firm engagement and we will say so.
The current pack
Spreadsheets, SharePoint and the board deck
Familiar, flexible, approved, and with no procurement to get through. For many organisations it is genuinely sufficient, and the honest test is whether anything has actually failed because of it.
Your spreadsheets are a fine input, and we start from them. The question is whether the same proof gets rebuilt every time somebody asks, and whether a decision made eighteen months ago could be explained now by anyone still there.
Where MyRISK sits
Three routes, three different jobs
Trace
Defensible decisions
A bounded record of one class of high-stakes decision: the evidence that existed at the time, the policy and control version that applied, the reasoning, who held authority, what exactly was approved, the conditions and their expiry, and what has changed since. Corrections are append-only and never overwrite the record.
Trace runs in your environment as a container service, integrates through its API and synchronises to Core. It begins with one decision class.
Essentials
Practical risk management for growing organisations
A First Risk Baseline built from what you already have — current themes, who owns them, what has stalled, where the evidence is thin — and then a recurring review that shows what moved. The first Baseline is free; the monthly refresh is the subscription.
Start from the spreadsheets and lists you already have. Nothing needs to be connected.
Core
The control and evidence position
Controls, evidence, owners, reporting and sign-off held once and reused across the questions that keep asking for them, rather than assembled by hand each time. Core is an enterprise GRC position: a register, control and evidence management, compliance and certification automation, reporting, and a FAIR engine for quantification.
Write the control once, satisfy every framework that asks for it. Core matches a control set automatically against any framework you work to — ISO 27001, NIST CSF, the Essential Eight and the ISM are the ones asked for most, and a framework of your own, a funder's or a regulator's can be loaded and matched the same way. The more frameworks apply to the same estate, the more that saves, which is what makes a multi-framework estate cheaper to run rather than simply better organised. No category above does this.
Running today in higher education, on the MCDS-aligned model — one live implementation, which is the honest answer to how proven this is.
If a GRC platform is what you are shopping for, this is the route to compare — and we will tell you plainly where an incumbent is the better fit.
Consulting sits across all three: fixed-scope assessments, third-party risk and FAIR-based quantification, delivered so that what gets built keeps running afterwards. See Consulting →
The boundaries, in writing
What this comparison does not claim
Read this before you use it in an evaluation
- This is a dated snapshot, not a scorecard. Every statement about another company was read from its own published pages on 18 September 2026. Products change, companies merge, and one name here had already moved between companies by the time this was written.
- Where a capability is not mentioned on another company’s page, this page says only that. It is not a claim that the product lacks it. If a comparison matters to something you are funding, ask both of us and make us show you.
- No measured saving is claimed here, by us or about anyone else. Reconstruction effort, review time and evidence rework vary by organisation, and any figure MyRISK has not measured with you would be invented.
- Nothing here promises compliance. Whether your position satisfies an obligation is your assessment and your regulator’s, never a vendor’s, and a replayable record is a property of the record rather than a supervisory conclusion.
- MyRISK does not pursue head-to-head platform replacements against the enterprise incumbents. That is a choice about where we compete rather than a statement about them.
- Losses to any product named here have not been counted, so no win-rate or displacement claim appears on this page and none should be read into it.
Not sure which of these you are actually buying?
That is the useful conversation, and it is a short one. Tell us what somebody asked you to prove, or which decision would be hardest to explain if it were questioned next month, and we will tell you which route fits — including when it is none of them.