LandingRed VS Digraph.dev

LandingRed's answer

LandingRed works with its first customers under NDA. Reference cases will be published as they're cleared.

LandingRed's answer

Most compliance tools stop at a checklist. LandingRed executes the whole chain: Annex III risk classification feeds the Annex IV technical documentation, which feeds the Article 17 QMS plan, the conformity assessment, CE marking, and EU database registration. Each stage inherits the previous one's output, so the same system data isn't re-entered six times.

The second difference is the cross-framework obligation model. GDPR, NIS2, DORA, the CRA, the Data Act, and ISO 42001 sit on one requirements graph alongside the AI Act — map a control once, and it satisfies its equivalents in the other regimes. 190+ requirements, no duplicated work.

The third is grounding. Every AI answer cites the specific article and paragraph behind it and refuses when no source matches, and every generated artifact carries Article 50(2) provenance marking at export. A compliance tool that invents its own compliance answers is worse than no tool.

LandingRed's answer

Three kinds of alternatives, three answers.

Against US GRC platforms that bolted on an AI module: those were built for SOC 2 and ISO 27001 and treat the AI Act as one more framework import. LandingRed was built outward from the regulation text — the classification engine, the Annex IV structure, and the Annex VI/VII conformity routes are the product, not a template pack.

Against enterprise AI governance platforms: they're scoped and priced for organisations that already have a regulatory department. Per-system enterprise pricing reaches tens of thousands a year before anyone has classified a single system. LandingRed is built so a two-person team gets to a defensible classification in an afternoon.

Against consultants and spreadsheets: a consultant's deliverable is a PDF that goes stale the week it's signed. LandingRed keeps the inventory, evidence, and audit trail live and regenerates the dossier when the system changes.

LandingRed's answer

Two groups.

European SMEs and mid-market companies that deploy or provide AI systems and have no dedicated regulatory function — the work lands on a CTO, a DPO wearing three hats, or an operations lead. Italy first, then the wider EU. Concentrated in sectors where Annex III actually bites: HR and recruiting tech, education, credit and insurance, healthcare, public-sector suppliers.

Second, consultancies, law firms and advisory practices running assessments for their own clients. White-label deployment with full tenant isolation exists for exactly this — the platform becomes their delivery tool under their own brand.

LandingRed's answer

LandingRed came out of advisory work with Italian SMEs. The pattern was consistent: companies knew the AI Act applied to them and had no practical way to prove it. The tooling that existed was priced for enterprises with regulatory departments, and the alternative was a consultant's report that aged out immediately.

Rather than adapt an existing GRC platform, we read the regulation article by article and built the execution chain it actually describes — classification, technical documentation, quality management, conformity, registration — then mapped the adjacent regimes onto the same obligation model, because an SME facing the AI Act is usually facing NIS2 or the Data Act in the same quarter.

LandingRed's answer

Python and Django, PostgreSQL, containerised with Docker. LLM integration is provider-agnostic with BYO-key support, plus self-hosted open-weight models for tenants that need inference to stay inside EU infrastructure. Retrieval runs against the regulatory corpus so generated text carries article-level citations. Technical robustness testing under Article 15 uses garak, NVIDIA's Apache-2.0 adversarial probe framework.