NIS2 Compliance Software Compared: We Scored 10 GRC Tools on Article 21 Evidence, Supplier Portals, and Real Pricing

Every NIS2 compliance software round-up on the market does the same thing: it lists ten vendors, calls each one a “strong option,” and sends you to a demo form for the price. Not one of the round-ups we checked — including the two most-cited ones — publishes an actual scoring method, a real pricing figure, or a clear answer to the question that matters most: is this a tool built for NIS2, or a generic GRC platform with an NIS2 content pack bolted on afterward?

We scored 6clicks, Drata, Vanta, Onspring, ServiceNow GRC, SAP GRC, RSA Archer, Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager, Tugboat Logic (now OneTrust), and Scrut Automation against six criteria tied directly to what Article 21 and Article 23 of the Directive actually require [1][2]. Below is the rubric, the table, ten honest write-ups, and a segmentation guide for which entity type should be shopping in which category at all.

What NIS2 Software Actually Needs to Do

Strip away the marketing and NIS2 compliance software has exactly one job: turn Article 21’s ten risk-management measure categories — risk analysis, incident handling, business continuity, supply chain security, secure system acquisition, effectiveness assessment, cyber hygiene training, cryptography, access control, and multi-factor authentication — into evidence a competent authority can actually inspect [1]. Germany’s BSI, the country’s national competent authority for NIS2, states this plainly: entities must document appropriate, proportionate, and effective technical and organisational measures across all ten areas, not just implement them quietly and hope nobody asks [3].

The second job is timeline discipline. Article 23 sets a three-stage reporting clock that most GRC software was never originally built around: an early warning within 24 hours of becoming aware of a significant incident, a fuller notification within 72 hours, and a final report no later than one month after that notification [2]. A tool that handles Article 21 evidence well but has no workflow for that 24/72/30-day sequence is only doing half the job.

How We Scored 10 Tools (Because Nobody Else Publishes a Rubric)

We checked the two most-cited comparison articles in this space before writing ours. Neither publishes pricing. Neither uses a numeric scoring system — both rely on adjectives like “strong option” and “stands out” with no criteria behind them [12][13]. That is not a knock on the writers; it is a structural gap in how this category gets covered, and it is the gap this article fills.

We scored each tool 0-5 on six criteria, for a maximum of 30:

• NIS2 Framework Depth — does the vendor ship a dedicated, pre-mapped NIS2 framework, or is NIS2 addressed through generic ISMS/GRC content?
• Article 21 Evidence Tracking — can the platform tie collected evidence to specific Article 21(2) sub-measures, not just a generic control library?
• Supplier Risk — does it have a dedicated third-party/supplier assessment workflow addressing Article 21(2)(d)?
• Incident Reporting — is the 24h/72h/1-month sequence from Article 23 built into the workflow, or left to manual process?
• SME Fit — realistically, can a 50-250 employee important entity deploy this without a dedicated integration team, or is it enterprise-only?
• Pricing Transparency — is there any public number to anchor a budget conversation, or is it “contact sales” end to end?

These are editorial scores based on public vendor documentation as of July 2026, not independent lab testing — treat the table as a structured starting point for vendor conversations, not a certification.

The Comparison Table

Tool	Framework Depth	Art.21 Evidence	Supplier Risk	Incident Reporting	SME Fit	Pricing Transparency	Total /30
6clicks	4	3	4	3	4	2	20
Drata	4	4	3	3	2	1	17
Scrut Automation	3	3	2	2	4	3	17
Vanta	3	4	3	2	2	2	16
Onspring	2	3	4	3	2	2	16
ServiceNow GRC	3	3	4	4	1	1	16
Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager	4	3	1	1	3	4	16
RSA Archer	2	4	3	2	1	1	13
Tugboat Logic / OneTrust	3	3	3	2	1	1	13
SAP GRC	1	3	1	1	1	1	8

Purpose-Built vs. Retrofitted: The Distinction No Other Round-Up Draws

The table hides a more useful pattern than the ranking itself. Split these ten tools by origin and the scores separate cleanly. 6clicks, Drata, Scrut, and Vanta were built as compliance-automation platforms first, then had NIS2 layered in as a named framework — all four score at or above 16. ServiceNow GRC, SAP GRC, RSA Archer, and Onspring are enterprise GRC or ERP-risk suites first, with NIS2 addressed through general-purpose modules, content packs, or (in SAP’s case) a named consulting-flavoured “enablement service” rather than a shipped product — three of those four land at 16 or below, and SAP GRC scores lowest of all ten because it has no dedicated NIS2 supplier-risk or incident-reporting capability at all [11].

Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager is the outlier worth flagging on its own: it scores well on framework depth and pricing transparency because Microsoft genuinely ships a named, priced NIS2 assessment template [7][8]. But it scores 1/5 on supplier risk and 1/5 on incident reporting because it is not a GRC platform — it is an internal Microsoft 365 configuration-assessment tool. It tells you whether your M365 tenant settings match NIS2’s technical controls; it does nothing for supplier assessments, incident logging, or the other nine entities in your supply chain.

The 10 Tools, One by One

6clicks (score: 20/30) leads because it was built around a hub-and-spoke model for MSPs managing many client entities at once — exactly the shape of the EU’s NIS2 market, where consultancies and managed providers serve dozens of SME clients. It ships a pre-built NIS2 framework mapping, gap-assessment templates, supplier risk-assessment workflows, and incident workflows aligned to the 24-hour early-warning window [6]. Pricing is not published.

Drata (17/30) treats NIS2 as an extension of an existing ISMS rather than a standalone program, which is the right model if you are already SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certified — its cross-mapping reduces duplicate evidence collection across frameworks [5]. Its “Assess Key Suppliers” workflow directly addresses Article 21(2)(d), though the platform assumes a compliance team already exists to run it; that is a weaker fit for a first-time SME program.

Scrut Automation (17/30) is the most SME-accessible of the automation-first group. It has a lower publicly reported entry price than its peers — one AWS Marketplace listing shows a Compliance Automation module starting near $15,000/year for organisations up to 20 employees, though Scrut does not publish pricing directly and this should be confirmed with sales before budgeting [15]. Its NIS2-specific supplier and incident workflows are less granular than 6clicks’ or Drata’s.

Vanta (16/30) has arguably the most mature continuous-evidence-collection engine of the group, which is why it scores highest on Article 21 evidence tracking — but NIS2 does not appear as a named framework on its own pricing page, and third-party pricing analyses put its cost anywhere from roughly $10,000 to over $80,000 per year depending on employee count and framework count, which should be treated as a reported range, not a quote [4].

Onspring (16/30) is a no-code GRC platform, meaning NIS2 compliance gets built as a configuration rather than bought as a pre-packaged product. Its named Third-Party Risk Management module is a genuine strength for Article 21(2)(d), but the configuration effort itself works against smaller entities — third-party estimates put annual cost anywhere from roughly $20,000 to $78,000, again reported rather than vendor-confirmed [14].

ServiceNow GRC (16/30) pairs its Configuration Management Database with a dedicated Security Incident Response module, which is why it is the strongest of the ten on incident-reporting workflow — CMDB-driven asset visibility genuinely helps map which systems an incident affects. It is also, by its own implementation partners’ admission, costly and complex to configure, and best suited to large organisations with a dedicated compliance and IT operations staff [10].

Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager (16/30) is the cheapest, most transparent option on this list in absolute terms — a named NIS2 Premium template reportedly priced near €500/month outside of Microsoft 365 E5 bundling, where it is included free [7][8]. But its scope is narrow: it assesses whether your M365 tenant configuration meets NIS2’s technical controls. It is not a substitute for supplier-risk management, incident logging, or the governance documentation Article 21 requires more broadly — pair it with an ISO 27001 or GDPR assessment template rather than relying on it alone.

RSA Archer (13/30) is one of the longest-established GRC platforms on the market, and its policy, risk, and audit-management modules generate genuinely strong evidence trails — but the search results and vendor documentation available do not show a dedicated, named NIS2 supply-chain or incident-response capability the way ServiceNow’s does. Archer is a heavy, integration-and-configuration-first deployment that suits enterprises already running a broader Archer risk program, not a first NIS2 purchase.

Tugboat Logic / OneTrust (13/30) illustrates a genuine trap in this category: Tugboat Logic was originally built as an SME-friendly SOC 2/ISO 27001 automation tool, but OneTrust acquired it in 2021 and folded it into the enterprise OneTrust Compliance Automation suite [9]. The standalone, SME-priced product a reader might remember from a few years ago no longer exists for new customers — what is sold today is enterprise-tier licensing with NIS2 content cross-mapped into it, a materially different buying decision.

SAP GRC (8/30) scores lowest for a specific, checkable reason: its Access Control, Process Control, and Risk Management modules manage risk inside your SAP ERP landscape — segregation of duties, user access reviews, internal process controls — not external supplier risk or incident reporting [11]. SAP’s own regional “enablement service” for NIS2 is positioned closer to a consulting engagement than a shipped product. If your organisation does not already run SAP ERP, there is no reason to evaluate this platform for NIS2 at all; if you do, it solves an adjacent problem, not the whole one.

Implementation Timelines: The Detail Every Comparison Article Skips

Neither of the two competitor round-ups we reviewed mentions how long any of these ten platforms actually take to deploy, yet timeline is often the deciding factor for an entity racing a national transposition deadline [12][13]. The automation-first tools — 6clicks, Drata, Vanta, Scrut — are built around integrations (cloud accounts, identity providers, ticketing systems) that auto-populate evidence, so a first framework typically goes live in two to six weeks once integrations are connected. The enterprise suites are a different order of project: ServiceNow, SAP GRC, and RSA Archer are consulting-led deployments layered on top of existing CMDB or ERP data, and implementation partners for all three describe multi-month rollouts measured in quarters, not weeks, before the platform produces its first usable NIS2 report. Onspring sits in between — its no-code builder is faster to configure than Archer, but every workflow still has to be built rather than switched on. Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager is the fastest of all ten to a first result if you already run Microsoft 365 E5: the NIS2 template is available immediately, with no separate deployment project at all, precisely because it only assesses configuration you already have.

The practical rule: if your entity is inside a live registration or first-audit window, timeline should outweigh feature depth in the shortlist — a platform that takes a quarter to configure adds no value if the audit lands before it goes live.

Which Type of Entity Should Even Be Looking at Each Category

A 60-person important entity building its first NIS2 program and a 3,000-person multinational essential entity are not shopping in the same market, even though every vendor above will happily take the meeting.

SME / important entity, first NIS2 program: Scrut, 6clicks, or a lightweight documented compliance checklist plus manual tracking will cover Article 21 evidence at a fraction of an enterprise GRC platform’s cost and configuration time. Onspring, Archer, ServiceNow, and SAP GRC are the wrong shape entirely at this size — you would spend more on implementation than the fine you are trying to avoid.

Mid-market, already ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certified: Drata or Vanta make sense specifically because cross-framework mapping avoids duplicating evidence you already collect — see how the requirements line up in our NIS2 vs. ISO 27001 comparison.

MSP or consultancy managing multiple client entities: 6clicks’ hub-and-spoke architecture is purpose-built for exactly this workload; ServiceNow can do it too, but at meaningfully higher integration cost.

Large enterprise or essential entity with a dedicated GRC team: ServiceNow, Archer, and OneTrust are realistic options — the complexity that disqualifies them for an SME is the same configurability that makes them fit at scale.

Already running Microsoft 365 E5 with no separate GRC budget: Purview Compliance Manager’s NIS2 template is a genuinely useful first pass on technical controls, included in your existing licence — just don’t mistake it for full Article 21 coverage.

What None of These 10 Tools Actually Do

Every platform on this list tracks, assesses, and reports evidence. None of them writes the underlying policies, risk assessments, or incident-handling procedures that Article 21 requires you to have in the first place — a GRC platform manages documents your organisation already produced; it does not produce the initial Article 21 policy set for you. It also will not tell you, on its own, whether your specific patch-management SLA or supplier contract clauses are strong enough — that judgement still requires a person who understands both the Directive and your environment. Software closes the tracking and audit-evidence gap. It does not close the expertise gap.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need dedicated NIS2 software, or will a generic GRC platform cover it?
It depends on what you already run. If you hold ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certification, a cross-mapping tool like Drata or Vanta avoids duplicate evidence work. If you are starting from zero, a purpose-built, lighter platform will get you to Article 21 evidence faster than configuring an enterprise suite from scratch.

What exactly does the software need to track under Article 21?
Evidence across all ten measure categories in Article 21(2): risk-analysis policy, incident handling, business continuity, supply chain security, secure system acquisition, effectiveness assessment, cyber hygiene training, cryptography policy, access control and asset management, and multi-factor authentication [1].

Is Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager enough on its own?
No. It assesses Microsoft 365 tenant configuration against NIS2’s technical controls, which is genuinely useful if you run M365, but it has no supplier-risk or incident-reporting functionality — pair it with a broader assessment.

How much does NIS2 compliance software actually cost?
Reported ranges vary widely by vendor and headcount — from roughly $15,000/year for smaller Scrut deployments to $80,000+/year for larger Vanta or Onspring enterprise contracts. Almost every vendor in this category quotes custom pricing, so treat every figure in this article as a starting point for a sales conversation, not a final number [4][14][15].

Can software alone make an organisation NIS2-compliant?
No platform on this list can certify or guarantee compliance on its own. Software tracks and evidences the measures your organisation implements; a qualified compliance professional still needs to determine whether those measures are appropriate and proportionate for your specific risk profile.

This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal or regulatory advice. Requirements may vary by jurisdiction and organisation type. Consult a qualified legal professional or compliance specialist for advice specific to your situation.

Sources

1. NIS 2 Directive, Article 21: Cybersecurity risk-management measures — nis-2-directive.com
2. NIS 2 Directive, Article 23: Reporting obligations — nis-2-directive.com
3. BSI (Germany’s NIS2 competent authority), NIS-2-Pflichten — bsi.bund.de
4. Vanta, Plans and Pricing — vanta.com/pricing
5. Drata, NIS 2 Compliance — drata.com/product/nis-2 (link omitted; the vendor’s site blocks automated requests)
6. 6clicks, The MSP guide to NIS2 compliance in Europe — 6clicks.com
7. Microsoft Trust Center, NIS2 Compliance & Cybersecurity Solutions — microsoft.com
8. Microsoft Community Hub, Announcing new pricing and capabilities in Compliance Manager premium templates — techcommunity.microsoft.com (link omitted; the site blocks automated requests)
9. OneTrust, NIS2 Compliance — onetrust.com
10. Plat4mation, How ServiceNow helps achieve NIS2 Compliance — plat4mation.com
11. SAP GRC module overview — onapsis.com and pathlock.com
12. usecure, Top 10 NIS2 Compliance Tools for 2026 — usecure.io
13. Ardion, Best NIS2 Software: Top 7 Compliance Tools for 2026 — ardion.io
14. SmartSuite, Onspring Pricing — smartsuite.com (reported figures, not vendor-confirmed)
15. Scrut Automation AWS Marketplace listing (referenced via search; pricing reported, not independently verified)