Preparing the evidence view…
Five comparisons, written so you can decide - including the cases where something other than ConformOps is the better buy. Every claim about another product comes from that vendor's own published material, is dated, and says “not publicly documented” where the vendor is silent.
It turns the evidence already present around a software release into a traceable CRA evidence chain - showing what supports each conclusion, where it came from, what is still missing, and what remains an accountable human decision.
It does not certify products, issue declarations, replace a notified body, or make a legal conclusion for you.
Most teams need three or four of these. Almost nobody needs one product to cover all six - and no product on this page does.
Does the CRA apply, in which class, in which role, and what is the sequence of work? Guidance-led tools are strongest here.
Hardening, secure defaults, testing, CI gates. This is your engineering work and your security stack - not a compliance product.
Component inventory, feeds, exploitation context, affectedness decisions, remediation. Depth here varies enormously between tools.
Finding the material that actually supports a requirement, and keeping it attached to the release it describes. This is where ConformOps starts.
Annex II, Annex V and Annex VII working records, and the declaration nobody but a named human can sign.
Release deltas, monitoring, Article 14 case records, reviewer access, and being able to explain a decision made nine months ago.
Choosing CRA software? Take these 15 questions to your vendor demo
Decide when software, a consultant or both fit the work. Keep an agreed evidence model current between engagements.
Task-by-task comparison with no invented consultancy costsRead this if you are choosing between two CRA platforms and need to know which one fits your product - particularly if it is embedded, or if your customers and suppliers keep asking you for evidence.
Most detailed page · 26 comparison rows · both pricesRead this if you are not yet sure whether your first problem is understanding the CRA - scope, class, role, roadmap - or documenting what you already ship.
Different category · 20 rows · where each one startsRead this if CRA work currently lives in Sheets or Excel and you want to know honestly whether that keeps working - and what specifically breaks first when it stops.
Includes when a spreadsheet is genuinely enoughRead this if you already run a scanner that produces SBOMs and CVE findings, and somebody has asked whether that is enough for the CRA. Category comparison, not a swipe at any vendor.
Usually complementary, not either/orConformOps is built on the assumption that a CRA conclusion is only worth as much as the trail behind it. Everything in the product is one of these four steps, or the record of who moved between them.
A bounded, evidence-relevant subset of repository material - documentation, configuration, CI and build files, source - plus supplied CycloneDX or SPDX SBOMs. Sanitized, hashed, pinned to a commit and a release. Never executed.
Versioned rules carrying authority kind, legal effect, publisher, citation, URL, locator and retrieval date. Binding law and non-binding guidance are labelled separately, never blended into one checklist line.
Evidenced, partial, gap or not applicable. Unresolved requirements become remediation work; product-security risk lives in its own register. Scope, classification, risk, affectedness and the gates stay with a person who has authority.
Annex-oriented working documents, CycloneDX inventory, traceability and register CSVs, an evidence workbook - each hashed, versioned and carrying its approval state. Incomplete documents stay visibly incomplete.
Evidence supports a decision; it does not become compliance. Finding something that sounds relevant is not the same as satisfying a requirement, so partial evidence stays partial and missing evidence stays visible.
Compliance gaps and cybersecurity risks are kept apart. Missing CRA work is not the same thing as a security risk scenario, and merging them is how registers stop being useful to either audience.
Two of these sit alongside ConformOps; one comes before it. Each comparison page says which, and what ConformOps does with the other tool's output.
ConformOps reads C/C++ dependency declarations conservatively and reports native builds as partially observable. A platform built around curated native matching will find more - and ConformOps reads its CycloneDX or SPDX output as release evidence, then carries it into the requirement and documentation chain.
ConformOps derives a route from facts you record and holds a gate open for a human. If “does this regulation cover us at all” is still open, guided planning material is a cheaper first step - and its answer becomes the scope decision ConformOps records against the product.
Keep your security stack; ConformOps does not replace any of it. It consumes what that stack produces - a supplied SBOM is stronger release evidence than anything we derive ourselves - and turns it into cited CRA evidence with an accountable decision attached.