Best EU AI Act compliance software for SMEs in 2026

Methodology and conflict of interest, up front. SetAIComply publishes this comparison and is one of the eleven products in it. We have a commercial interest in you choosing us. To make that bias checkable rather than invisible, we applied three rules: every factual claim about another vendor comes from that vendor's own public pages (URL cited), every cell we could not verify is left empty rather than estimated, and our own gaps are listed in the same table as everyone else's — including the two certifications we do not hold. No vendor paid to be included, and no vendor was contacted before publication. If you find an error about your product, write to us and we will correct it and date the correction.

The one-sentence version

If you are a European SME that has to comply with the EU AI Act, the hardest part of choosing software is not comparing features — it is finding out what anything costs. Eight of the ten established vendors we checked publish no price at all. That single fact shapes this entire market, and it is where we start.

Who this guide is for

This is written for a specific reader: a company of roughly 10 to 250 people, based in the EU or selling into it, that builds, deploys or embeds AI, and that now has to demonstrate compliance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — the EU AI Act.

You probably do not have a dedicated compliance team. You may have a DPO, possibly external. Someone technical has been handed the file. You need to know which AI systems you operate, which of them fall under Annex III, what documentation you owe, and how to produce it without spending forty thousand euros on a consultancy.

If you are a bank, an insurer or a listed manufacturer with a governance department, this guide is not for you — the enterprise platforms in section 6 are better suited, and their sales teams will tell you so at length.

What changed in 2026, and why the market is confusing right now

Two things happened this summer that make older comparisons unreliable.

The Digital Omnibus moved the high-risk deadlines. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, adopted 8 July 2026, published in the Official Journal on 24 July and in force since 27 July 2026, postponed the obligations for stand-alone high-risk systems under Article 6(2) and Annex III from 2 August 2026 to 2 December 2027, and those for high-risk AI embedded in regulated products under Article 6(1) and Annex I to 2 August 2028. [1]

But the transparency obligations were not postponed. Article 50 applies since 2 August 2026. If you operate a chatbot, generate synthetic content, or deploy emotion recognition, you are in scope now — not in 2027. Article 4, on AI literacy, has applied since 2 February 2025; market surveillance under Chapter IX begins on 2 August 2026, and the Commission's own AI literacy FAQ states both "2 August 2026" and "3 August 2026" on the same page. [2] Neither date appears in the Regulation itself; the legal hook is Article 113's general application date.

And one obligation was added, not removed. The Omnibus inserted two new prohibited practices into Article 5 — AI systems whose purpose or reasonably foreseeable output is non-consensual intimate imagery ("nudification" apps) or child sexual abuse material. These are new Article 5(1) points (ba) and (bb), and they apply from 2 December 2026, not from February 2025 like the rest of Article 5. [1] Any comparison that tells you "Article 5 has applied since February 2025, full stop" is now out of date.

The Omnibus also reshaped two things worth knowing when you evaluate software:

• Article 4 was softened. The wording moved from "ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy" to a duty to "take measures to support the development of" AI literacy, and the new text adds a sentence that settles the question outright: *"This obligation does not require providers or deployers to guarantee any specific level of AI literacy of any individual."* [1] Any vendor selling you a mandatory certification-and-testing programme is overselling the obligation.
• Article 27 (FRIA) became interoperable with the GDPR DPIA. The old text said a FRIA "shall complement" an existing data protection impact assessment. The new Article 27(4) says the deployer "may ... include cross-references to the relevant sections of that data protection impact assessment or include relevant parts thereof". [1] It is not a merger and not an exemption — you still conduct a FRIA — but you may now populate it by reference. If you already run DPIAs, that is reusable work.
• Annex IV got a simplified form for SMEs, and notified bodies must accept it. The amended Article 11(1) provides that SMEs, start-ups and the newly defined small mid-cap enterprises "may provide the elements of the technical documentation specified in Annex IV in a simplified manner", that the Commission shall establish a simplified form, and that *"Notified bodies shall accept the form for the purposes of the conformity assessment."* [1] This is the single most consequential change in the Omnibus for the reader of this guide, and almost no vendor page mentions it.

Why this matters for your shortlist: a good number of vendor pages and comparison articles still show 2 August 2026 as the Annex III deadline. When you evaluate a tool, search its site for "2026/1744". If the regulation number is absent, the content predates the Omnibus, and you should treat its compliance calendar as stale.

The pricing table — the headline finding

This is the table we set out to build. It is mostly empty, and that emptiness is the result.

On IBM's figures. IBM's pricing page lists, on the English version: Risk & Compliance Basic "starting at $44,000", Advanced "starting at $79,800", and watsonx.governance on AWS "starting at $42,000". [3] Two caveats we are obliged to pass on. First, the billing period is not labelled on the page. Second, the French-language version of the same page shows different figures — the AWS capacity appears at $38,160 rather than $42,000, with a different tier structure entirely. IBM states that prices are indicative and may vary by country. If IBM is on your shortlist, get the figure in writing for your jurisdiction.

Third-party price claims we deliberately excluded. Several comparison articles publish figures for Vanta ("~$7,500/year") and Drata ("~$15K/year", elsewhere "~$7,500/year"). None of these appear on vanta.com or drata.com, and they contradict each other. We do not repeat them. Similarly, Credo AI's AWS Marketplace listing shows a line at $1.00 for 12 months — this is a technical placeholder for private offers, stated as such in the listing itself, not a price.

Why this table looks the way it does. Opaque pricing is a rational strategy when your buyer is a large regulated enterprise with a procurement department and a six-month evaluation cycle. It is a poor fit when your buyer is a thirty-person company that needs to classify four AI systems and produce one Annex IV file. For that buyer, a discovery call, a demo and a proposal cost more calendar time than the compliance work itself.

That is the gap we built SetAIComply for, and it is the honest reason our prices are public: at €39 a month, a sales call would cost more than the subscription.

Capability matrix

Reading rule, applied strictly. A checkmark below means the vendor names the article or annex explicitly on a product page. Not a blog post, not a glossary of general concepts, not "we cover the EU AI Act" — the specific reference, on a page describing what the product does. This is a deliberately harsh standard, and it produces a lot of empty cells. We think an empty cell you can verify is more useful than a checkmark you cannot.

*Two findings worth stating plainly.*

First, only two vendors of the ten name the specific legal references on their product pages: Holistic AI for the FRIA, and trail for Annex IV and Article 4. Everyone else describes EU AI Act coverage in general terms. This does not mean the capability is absent — it means you cannot verify it before a sales call.

Second, our own row has the worst certification cell in the table. Vanta, Drata, Modulos and trail all hold ISO 42001. We hold nothing. If your procurement process requires a certified vendor, stop reading here and pick one of those four. We would rather you find that out in paragraph forty than in month three.

A note on Drata, because it matters for this specific use case

Drata appears on most EU AI Act comparison lists. Their own Help Center tells a different story: the list of pre-mapped frameworks includes ISO 42001:2023 and NIST AI RMF, alongside SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, DORA, NIS 2 and roughly twenty others — but the EU AI Act is not in it. [4] The URL drata.com/product/eu-ai-act returns 404. They publish EU AI Act educational content, including a webinar on the Act and ISO 42001, but the framework itself does not appear to be supported as a mapped compliance programme.

This is not a criticism of Drata, which is a strong SOC 2 and ISO 27001 platform. It is a caution about lists that include it as an EU AI Act tool without checking.

Vendor by vendor

The enterprise AI governance platforms

Credo AI — Palo Alto, founded 2020. Positions itself for *"the world's most iconic enterprises."* Offers pre-built Policy Packs for the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001 and SOC 2, and describes *"full alignment with European AI regulation including risk classification and conformity assessments."* SOC 2 Type II. No public pricing, no published EU hosting, no published language count. One thing to check if you evaluate them: their dedicated EU AI Act landing page still carries language written before the Act's final text was published — *"when the final text of the EU AI Act is published, Credo AI will provide Policy Packs"* — which suggests it has not been maintained.

Holistic AI — London, founded 2020. The most explicit of the ten on FRIA: their regulatory alignment page lists platform outputs including *"Technical Documentation (PDF), Impact Assessment (FRIA) (PDF), Conformity Declaration (PDF), Audit Trail + Evidence (ZIP)."* Built for *"complex enterprise environments."* No public pricing. Their trust and security pages return 404, so the only certification signal is a passing mention of "SOC 2 platform" on the platform page. A note on funding figures: several aggregators attribute very large raises to Holistic AI. There is a separate company called Holistic (Paris, ex-DeepMind, AGI research) which raised at that scale. We are not publishing a funding figure for Holistic AI because we could not verify one.

OneTrust — the privacy-management incumbent, with an AI Governance module offering EU AI Act, NIST and ISO 42001 templates. Named a Visionary in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for AI Governance Platforms 2026. Pricing page exists but shows no amounts: *"each solution package has one or more value-based usage meters."* The one hard number we could verify is impressive and unmatched in this group: all 31 languages supported by the OneTrust platform are configurable [5] — though that is platform-wide, not specific to the AI Governance module.

IBM watsonx.governance — the only enterprise vendor in this comparison that publishes real prices, and the only one with a genuine self-service free trial (14 days). If your organisation already runs on IBM Cloud, the integration argument is strong. For a thirty-person European SME, the entry figures in section 3 speak for themselves.

Kosmoy — Milan. *"The AI management platform for the regulated enterprise."* Named customers include Banca d'Italia and Leonardo. Deploys into the customer's own Kubernetes — Azure, AWS, GCP, on-premises or air-gapped — which is a genuinely strong sovereignty story for organisations that cannot use SaaS at all. They are refreshingly direct about their commercial model: *"No tiers, no self-service."* No certifications published.

The compliance automation platforms

Vanta — founded 2018, 16,000+ customers across 58 countries. The strongest certification portfolio in this comparison, including ISO 42001. Their EU AI Act page contains a useful, quotable framing: *"The EU AI Act spans over 150 controls, 16 policies, and dozens of required artifacts."* Features cover role and risk classification, AI policy management, and incident and model monitoring for post-market obligations, with evidence reuse across NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001. Four pricing tiers, no amounts, no free trial.

Drata — see section 5. Excellent SOC 2 and ISO 27001 platform, ISO 42001 certified itself, but the EU AI Act is not among its mapped frameworks.

The EU-native specialists

Saidot — Helsinki, founded 2018. *"EU-native platform, globally applicable."* Library of 260+ risks, 620+ controls, 110+ policies. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certified. Free trial confirmed, and their pricing FAQ describes plan changes, cancellation and VAT by company location — the vocabulary of a self-service subscription rather than an enterprise contract. Their pricing page exists but the tier block did not render for us across four extraction attempts, so we cannot report amounts. They also publish a free public EU AI Act Classifier, which is worth using regardless of what you buy. Seed round of €1.75M in October 2023. Named a Niche Player in the Gartner MQ 2026.

Modulos — Zurich, founded 2018, ETH Zurich spin-off. The only vendor of the ten to name SMEs explicitly in its own positioning: SaaS deployment described as *"best for: SMEs and enterprises with standard cloud requirements."* First platform to achieve ISO/IEC 42001 product-conformity certification, plus SOC 2 Type 2. Data residency across EU, US, UAE and Singapore, plus private cloud. CHF 16.4M raised to date. They offer a Free Starter Plan — one user, one project, up to 100 AI agent workflows per month, no credit card — but with an important nuance: access requires a request form and approval, so it is not pure self-service.

trail — Munich, founded 2023. The most legally precise vendor content we found in this entire exercise. Their glossary defines technical documentation as *"required EU AI Act records (Annex IV) describing a high-risk AI system's design, purpose, and risk controls"* and names AI literacy as an *"explicit EU AI Act obligation, Art. 4."* Their EU AI Act page is fully current with the Digital Omnibus, citing Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and both new dates correctly — one of very few we checked that does. Hosted on European servers, GCP Europe, with on-premises and BYOC options; ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 42001 certified. €1.45M pre-seed, July 2024. Free ISO 42001 maturity assessment; no product trial published.

And us

SetAIComply — Paris, founded 2026. Built for European SMEs specifically: applicability scoping, Annex III risk classification, Annex IV technical documentation, DPIA and FRIA, AI literacy under Article 4, a regulatory radar, shadow-AI detection, bias testing and vendor management. Documentation generated in all 24 official EU languages rather than translated afterwards. Hosted in the EU (Amsterdam), GDPR-native, DPA available. Free tier at €0; paid plans from €39/month; Enterprise at €9,588/year.

What we do not have. We are not SOC 2 certified and not ISO 27001 certified. Our domain is six months old. We have no analyst recognition, no Gartner placement, and a customer base you could count. Four of the ten vendors above hold ISO 42001, which we do not. If any of that is disqualifying for you, it should be — and you now know it without a sales call.

How to actually choose

If you need a certified vendor for procurement — Vanta, Drata, Modulos or trail. All four hold ISO 42001. Modulos and trail additionally publish EU data residency.

If you cannot use SaaS at all — Kosmoy (your own Kubernetes) or trail (on-premises / BYOC).

If sovereignty and EU hosting are the deciding factor — trail (European servers, Germany-built), Modulos (EU region + private cloud), or SetAIComply (Amsterdam).

If you are already an IBM shop — watsonx.governance, and you can trial it today without talking to anyone.

If you need something running this week, at a price you can approve without a purchase order — that is a very short list: IBM's trial, Modulos' free plan (after approval), Saidot's free trial, and us.

If your immediate problem is Article 50 and not high-risk classification — you are in scope now, not in December 2027, and you need disclosure and marking, not a full governance platform. Start with a classification of what you actually run. Saidot's free classifier and our free risk checker both do this without a signup.

What we could not verify

In the spirit of not pretending this is more rigorous than it is:

• Saidot's pricing amounts — the page exists, the tier block would not render for us.
• IBM's billing period — not labelled on the page, and figures differ between language versions.
• Language counts for eight of the eleven — simply not published.
• EU hosting for six of the eleven — not stated publicly.
• Funding for Holistic AI, OneTrust, Vanta, Drata and Kosmoy — either not published or contaminated by name collisions.
• Drata's framework list may change; we captured it on 18 August 2026.

We did not test any of these products hands-on. This is a comparison of what vendors publish, not a benchmark of what they deliver. Treat it as a shortlisting tool, not a verdict.

Frequently asked questions

Has the EU AI Act been delayed? Partly, and only for high-risk. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 moved Annex III high-risk obligations to 2 December 2027 and Annex I to 2 August 2028 — as fixed calendar dates, not conditional on standards being ready. (The Commission's original proposal did contain a readiness-based trigger; it was dropped from the adopted text, and survives only as non-binding language in Recital 40.) Everything else stands: prohibited practices (Article 5) since 2 February 2025, AI literacy (Article 4) since 2 February 2025, GPAI obligations since 2 August 2025, penalties since 2 August 2025, and transparency under Article 50 since 2 August 2026. Two dates run the other way — the two new Article 5 prohibitions and the Article 50(2) marking transition both land on 2 December 2026. If you have a chatbot, you are in scope now.

Do I need software at all, or can I use spreadsheets? For a handful of low-risk systems and no high-risk exposure, a well-maintained register and a documented literacy programme may genuinely be enough. Software earns its place when you have several systems, when documentation must stay current as the law changes, and when you have to produce evidence on request in a language that is not your own.

What is the difference between a GRC platform and an AI governance platform? GRC platforms (Vanta, Drata) automate evidence collection against control frameworks — they are built around SOC 2 and ISO 27001 and extend to AI. AI governance platforms (Credo AI, Holistic AI, Saidot, Modulos, trail) are built around model inventories, risk classification and impact assessment. The EU AI Act needs the second more than the first, because Annex III classification and Annex IV documentation are judgement work, not evidence collection.

Why do so few vendors publish prices? Because most of them sell to large regulated enterprises through procurement, where price is negotiated per deployment. It is a coherent strategy. It is simply a poor match for a company that needs an answer this month.

Is ISO 42001 the same as EU AI Act compliance? No. ISO/IEC 42001 is a management-system standard for AI; it is a strong foundation and will likely support conformity arguments, but it is not a substitute for the Act's specific obligations — Annex III classification, Annex IV documentation, Article 27 FRIA, Article 50 transparency.

Can a fundamental rights impact assessment reuse our DPIA? Since the Digital Omnibus, yes. The amended Article 27(4) lets the deployer "include cross-references to the relevant sections of that data protection impact assessment or include relevant parts thereof" in the FRIA. You still conduct the FRIA; you may populate parts of it by reference. The AI Office is also mandated under the new Article 27(5) to publish a questionnaire template, "including through an automated tool", to simplify this.

We already ship a chatbot. What exactly do we owe, and when? Article 50(1) — telling users they are interacting with an AI — applies now, since 2 August 2026, with no transition. So do Article 50(3) (emotion recognition and biometric categorisation) and Article 50(4) (deployer disclosure of deep fakes). The only thing that got a grace period is Article 50(2), the machine-readable marking of synthetic output, and only for providers whose system was placed on the market before 2 August 2026. The new Article 111(4), inserted by the Omnibus, gives those providers until 2 December 2026 — a four-month window. Read the trigger carefully: it attaches to when the system was placed on the market, not to when the content was generated. A system launched in September 2026 has no transition at all.

Is there an SME discount on the fines? Yes, and it is not symmetrical. Article 99(6) provides that for SMEs, including start-ups, each fine is capped at the percentage or the fixed amount, "whichever thereof is lower" — where for everyone else it is whichever is *higher*. The Omnibus added Article 99(6a) extending a similar cap to the new category of small mid-cap enterprises, but only for paragraphs 4 and 5. SMCs do not get the lower-of cap for Article 5 prohibited-practice fines under paragraph 3. If you are choosing software partly to manage fine exposure, know which of the two categories you fall into.

Does Annex IV documentation have to be as heavy for us as for a large company? No, and this changed in July 2026. The amended Article 11(1) allows SMEs, start-ups and small mid-caps to provide the Annex IV elements "in a simplified manner", requires the Commission to establish a simplified technical documentation form, and states that notified bodies shall accept it. Article 63(1) extends simplified quality-management-system compliance from microenterprises to all SMEs without partner or linked enterprises. When you evaluate a tool, ask whether it produces the full Annex IV or the simplified form — most vendor pages predate the distinction entirely.

Sources

*Primary legal sources*

[1] Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act) — https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj [1a] Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 (Digital Omnibus on AI), adopted 8 July 2026, OJ 24 July 2026, in force 27 July 2026 — ELI https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj · authentic OJ text https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202601744 [1b] Consolidated Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 as amended, version of 27 July 2026 — https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A02024R1689-20260727 *(EUR-Lex consolidated texts are editorial, not legally authoritative)* [2] European Commission — AI literacy questions and answers — https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/ai-literacy-questions-answers Articles referenced: 4 (AI literacy), 6 (high-risk classification), 9 (risk management), 11 and Annex IV (technical documentation), 25 (value chain responsibilities), 27 (FRIA), 50 (transparency), 99 (penalties), 113 (application), Annex III (high-risk use cases).

*Vendor sources, all accessed 18 August 2026*

[3] IBM watsonx.governance pricing — https://www.ibm.com/products/watsonx-governance/pricing [4] Drata supported frameworks — https://help.drata.com/en/articles/5329593-frameworks [5] OneTrust supported languages — https://my.onetrust.com/s/article/UUID-7004a7dd-f485-360b-52e8-09e67c32f917 [6] Credo AI regulations and standards — https://www.credo.ai/solutions/regulations-and-standards [7] Credo AI SOC 2 Type II — https://trust.credo.ai/ [8] Holistic AI regulatory alignment — https://www.holisticai.com/regulatory-alignment [9] Holistic AI EU AI Act readiness — https://www.holisticai.com/eu-ai-act-readiness [10] OneTrust AI Governance — https://www.onetrust.com/products/ai-governance/ [11] OneTrust pricing — https://www.onetrust.com/pricing/ [12] Vanta EU AI Act — https://www.vanta.com/products/eu-ai-act [13] Vanta pricing — https://www.vanta.com/pricing [14] Vanta trust center — https://trust.vanta.com [15] Drata pricing — https://www.drata.com/pricing [16] Drata trust center — https://trust.drata.com/ [17] Saidot pricing — https://www.saidot.ai/pricing [18] Saidot get started (free trial) — https://www.saidot.ai/get-started [19] Saidot EU AI Act Classifier — https://www.saidot.ai/insights/eu-ai-act-classifier [20] Saidot seed round — https://www.saidot.ai/insights/saidot-raises-seed-round-to-grow-its-ai-governance-platform [21] Modulos Free Starter Plan — https://www.modulos.ai/press-releases/modulos-launch-free-starter-plan [22] Modulos company and funding — https://www.modulos.ai/company [23] Modulos pricing — https://www.modulos.ai/pricing [24] trail EU AI Act — https://www.trail-ml.com/eu-ai-act [25] trail responsible AI glossary (Annex IV, Art. 4) — https://www.trail-ml.com/responsible-ai-glossary [26] trail high-risk checklist (FRIA) — https://www.trail-ml.com/blog/eu-ai-act-high-risk-checklist [27] trail Microsoft Marketplace listing (EU hosting, certifications) — https://marketplace.microsoft.com/en-us/product/trail.trail_ai_governance [28] trail pre-seed round — https://www.vestbee.com/insights/articles/trail-raises-1-45-m [29] Kosmoy pricing — https://www.kosmoy.com/pricing [30] Kosmoy company — https://www.kosmoy.com/company [31] IBM watsonx.governance product — https://www.ibm.com/products/watsonx-governance [32] Credo AI Series A — https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/credo-ai-closes-12-8-million-series-a-funding-round-led-by-sands-capital-301548311.html [33] SetAIComply pricing — https://www.setaicomply.com/pricing

*Other comparisons we read, for the reader who wants a second opinion*

[34] Kosmoy — Holistic AI alternatives — https://www.kosmoy.com/resources/blog/holistic-ai-alternatives [35] KLA Digital — Best EU AI Act compliance software 2026 — https://kla.digital/blog/best-eu-ai-act-compliance-software-2026 [36] AI Compliance Vendors — independent directory — https://aicompliancevendors.com/ [37] Centraleyes — Top AI compliance tools — https://www.centraleyes.com/top-ai-compliance-tools [38] GetAIGovernance — Best AI compliance platforms 2026 — https://getaigovernance.net/blog/best-ai-compliance-platforms-2026 [39] Venvera — Best EU AI Act compliance software — https://venvera.com/best/eu-ai-act-compliance-software

Corrections: if any statement about your product is inaccurate, contact us and we will amend it with a dated note. We do not accept payment for inclusion, placement or removal.