Rizzqo VS Selfcommit.dev

Rizzqo's answer

Rizzqo starts from the organization, not from the framework. You model the critical services, information and processes you protect, the systems and suppliers they depend on, and who is responsible for each. Frameworks are then translated into requirements that are specific to each type of asset, applied automatically and assigned to the asset's owner. The owner answers, attaches evidence and confirms. Compliance status is calculated from those confirmed answers, never self-declared. A requirement fulfilled once counts for every framework that contains the matching control. Open requirements become gaps, gaps become risk with a monetary value and a treatment decision, and leadership sees which business services are exposed by unfinished work. It is made in Germany and runs on servers in the customer's own country.

Rizzqo's answer

Choose Rizzqo if your problem is execution rather than documentation. Most compliance programs already have policies and control lists; what they lack is a reliable answer to "who implements this, on which system, and where is the proof". Rizzqo is built around that question. Requirements land on assets and owners instead of in a central spreadsheet, evidence is attached where the work happens, and the security team steers the program instead of chasing status by email. It fits organizations running several European frameworks at once, with responsibility spread across many teams, and with a requirement to keep data in their own countries.

Rizzqo's answer

ISMS managers and information security managers who run compliance day to day, and CISOs who need a reliable implementation view for management. Typically regulated mid-sized organizations in DACH, roughly 100 to 2,000 employees, in sectors such as financial services, manufacturing, automotive, energy, healthcare and IT services, with two or more frameworks in scope and a small compliance team.

Rizzqo's answer

Rizzqo started with a frustration the two founders lived for years, from both sides of the compliance table. Masar Hetemi spent a decade in compliance and risk roles, watching teams drown in checklists while real risks went unaddressed. Muhammad Haseeb spent his career building the software those teams depend on. They kept running into the same pattern: tools that start with a framework and end with a checklist. They tell you what a standard requires, but never who is responsible or which server, database or SaaS tool actually has to be configured. The result was unclear ownership, evidence scattered across drives and inboxes, and a scramble every time an audit came around. Nobody could honestly say whether the organization was secure.

The insight was simple but stubborn: compliance only works when it is connected to the systems it describes, assigned to the people who own those systems, and backed by real proof. So instead of building another place to store policies, they built a system that turns each control into specific requirements for specific types of systems. When you register a server, a database or a SaaS tool, the right requirements appear automatically. The owner answers them, attaches proof and locks the response. If a requirement is not met, it becomes a documented gap, and if the gap persists, a formal risk decision. Rizzqo is built in Germany by practitioners, with the goal of making compliance a side effect of actually doing the work.