Who each option is best for, and where either supplier is deliberately narrower.
Vendor comparison
Credo AI vs Modulos: capability comparison
A side-by-side comparison of Credo AI and Modulos across RoPA, DPIA, vendor risk, AI governance and evidence workflows. Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
Credo AIModulosComparison
Which public claims, review signals, caveats and capability rows are evidenced.
How much work it takes to implement, maintain and export the privacy record.
The questions a privacy team should ask before switching or shortlisting.
On this page
Key takeaways
- Credo AI and Modulos are compared here on public-documentation capability coverage: Credo AI is publicly documented for 6 of 20 tracked capabilities, Modulos for 8.
- The clearest difference: Modulos adds Multi-entity support, PDF/CSV/Excel export, which Credo AI doesn't publicly document.
- Credo AI's public lane is US enterprise AI-governance, risk and compliance platform for the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001; Modulos's public lane is Dedicated AI-governance (GRC) platform for the EU AI Act, ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF, with multi-framework control mapping and quantified AI risk.
- Capability coverage reflects what each vendor publicly documents; confirm current scope, pricing and exports directly with each vendor.
01Short answer
Credo AI vs Modulos
Credo AI is positioned as: US enterprise AI-governance, risk and compliance platform for the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001. Modulos is positioned as: Dedicated AI-governance (GRC) platform for the EU AI Act, ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF, with multi-framework control mapping and quantified AI risk. Across the tracked capabilities Credo AI and Modulos cover much of the same ground, so the decision rests more on operating model, depth and jurisdiction fit than on feature presence.
Modulos has broader public-documentation coverage in this comparison (8 of 20 tracked rows, compared with 6 for Credo AI). Capability coverage below reflects what each vendor publicly documents; Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
02At a glance
Credo AI vs Modulos at a glance
| Decision question | Credo AI | Modulos | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Enterprise AI, ML and data-science programmes that need to discover, inventory, test and govern AI systems and agents against the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001 | Large and regulated organisations deploying AI systems that need multi-framework AI governance, quantified AI risk and runtime evidence in one connected graph | Irish, UK and EU privacy teams that need first-class EU AI Act governance - an AI-system register, risk classification and conformity workflow - connected to their RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records and built around the Irish DPC and UK ICO |
| Operating model | AI-governance, risk and compliance platform: AI registry and discovery, continuous risk intelligence, policy packs, evidence generation and runtime/agent governance | A dedicated AI-governance platform: a Governance Graph mapping one control across many AI frameworks, monetary risk quantification, AI agents and runtime inspection | EU AI Act governance and compliance platform: AI-system register, EU AI Act risk classification and conformity/assessment workflow with human-approved, provenance-based AI records - connected to assessment-fed RoPA, DPIA, DSAR, risk and vendor records |
| When to choose it | Choose Credo AI when the main problem is governing a large estate of AI models and agents against AI-specific frameworks, with model-level discovery, testing and conformity | Choose Modulos when the main problem is governing AI systems across the EU AI Act, ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF with quantified risk and production-runtime evidence | Choose Acompli when the priority is connected, human-approved, provenance-based EU AI Act compliance - AI-system records, risk classification and conformity - sitting inside a defensible privacy programme (RoPA, DPIA, suppliers) for the Irish DPC and UK ICO |
- Best for: Large enterprises and regulated organisations (financial services, healthcare, public sector) running in-house AI/ML and agent estates that need model-level discovery, testing, policy conformity and audit-ready evidence across AI frameworks.
- Deployment: Cloud SaaS AI-governance platform (with a documented self-hosted option); AI registry, risk intelligence, policy engine, runtime/agent governance and governance AI agents (GAIA), integrated with cloud, MLOps and GRC tooling. Multiple organisations and business units are not supported on a single instance per Credo AI's self-hosted documentation.
- Best for: Large and regulated organisations - financial services, telecommunications, transport, utilities, defence - deploying high-risk or many AI systems that need multi-framework AI governance, monetary risk quantification and runtime evidence.
- Deployment: Cloud SaaS with optional private-cloud/VPC deployment and EU/US/UAE/Singapore data residency; connects to existing tools (GitHub, Bitbucket, Azure, AWS, Confluence, Jira, Prometheus, Datadog, MLflow) via REST API and Python SDK rather than ingesting raw data.
05Official source signals
What Credo AI and Modulos emphasise publicly
This section uses each vendor's own public positioning as the starting point. It is included so customers can see why the two companies may appear in the same shortlist while still solving different problems.
The capability table remains conservative: "Y" means a capability was publicly documented, while "N" means it was not publicly confirmed in the reviewed material.
Credo AI official website
Open the official Credo AI source used to ground this profile.
ExploreModulos official website
Open the official Modulos source used to ground this profile.
Explore| Signal | Credo AI | Modulos |
|---|---|---|
| Public positioning | Credo AI positions itself as an enterprise AI governance, risk and compliance platform. | Modulos positions itself as an AI governance, risk and compliance platform for EU AI Act, ISO 42001 and related frameworks. |
| Main public signals | Official pages emphasise an AI registry, policies, risk workflows, compliance evidence and regulatory alignment.; The public lane includes AI governance proof for frameworks and regulations such as the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001.; Credo AI is strongest where AI governance is the primary programme rather than a module inside a privacy platform. | Official pages emphasise a Governance Graph, cross-framework controls, risk quantification, policy approval, vendor review and evidence workflows.; The public lane is dedicated AI GRC with strong EU AI Act and ISO 42001 positioning.; Modulos is strongest where the buyer needs full AI governance and control mapping rather than privacy-record administration. |
| Best-fit buyer | Large enterprises and regulated organisations (financial services, healthcare, public sector) running in-house AI/ML and agent estates that need model-level discovery, testing, policy conformity and audit-ready evidence across AI frameworks | Large and regulated organisations - financial services, telecommunications, transport, utilities, defence - deploying high-risk or many AI systems that need multi-framework AI governance, monetary risk quantification and runtime evidence |
| Buyer verification | Ask Credo AI to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. | Ask Modulos to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. |
06Sourced 2025-2026 signals
What's new at Credo AI (2025-2026, sourced)
These sourced updates were researched on 2026-07-05 and are listed separately from the live comparison table so existing profile claims remain unchanged.
Credo AI's AI governance agent, GAIA (Govern AI Assistant) — described generically in the existing profile as "governance AI agents (GAIA)" — moved from public preview to full general availability in 2026. Per Credo AI's own announcement, GAIA now drafts use-case descriptions/metadata from uploaded documents, suggests governance-questionnaire answers, and recommends risk scenarios and mitigating controls from Credo AI's library, with every suggestion editable/rejectable by a human reviewer (vendor marketing claim).
Credo AI became available in the Microsoft Marketplace in November 2025, with an integration connecting its governance workflows to Azure AI Foundry's technical AI model evaluations — an integration not listed among the integrations already documented in the existing profile (AWS, Azure, GCP, Databricks, Snowflake, MLflow, ServiceNow, Archer, OneTrust).
Credo AI was named No. 6 in the Applied AI category of Fast Company's World's Most Innovative Companies of 2026 (announced March 24, 2026, alongside Google, Nvidia, OpenAI and Anthropic), and separately was named a Gartner Cool Vendor in AI Cybersecurity Governance in 2025 — recognitions not captured in the existing profile, which cites only the Forrester Wave Q3 2025 Leader placement and the 2025 Gartner Market Guide.
Credo AI founder and CEO Navrina Singh was named one of TIME's 100 Most Influential People in AI in 2025 — a leadership-level recognition not reflected in the existing profile, which names her only as founder.
Credo AI's public customers page currently lists a broader named-logo roster than the existing profile's "Mastercard, Autodesk, Booz Allen Hamilton and US federal programmes" — including PepsiCo, Cisco, Chevron, Northrop Grumman, Cigna, Databricks and McKinsey — across 13 listed industries (e.g. Aerospace & Defense, Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals, Financial Services & Banking), reinforcing the large-enterprise/regulated-industry positioning already in the profile.
Distinct from the SOC 2 compliance policy pack Credo AI sells to help its customers achieve their own SOC 2 attestation (already noted in the existing profile), Credo AI states it has independently obtained its own SOC 2 Type II report covering the security, availability and confidentiality of its platform, audited by an AICPA-certified independent service auditor (vendor claim, not independently re-verified here).
An unresolved US trademark dispute exists between Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd (NASDAQ: CRDO, an unrelated semiconductor company) and Credo.AI Corp over use of the "Credo" name, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in 2024 (case 3:24-cv-02032). Related USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board opposition proceedings were still stayed pending the outcome of that civil action as of the most recent filings found (May 2025). This is unrelated to Acompli or GDPR/AI Act compliance but is a factual note on brand/name overlap worth being aware of when citing "Credo" as a company name.
07Sourced 2025-2026 signals
What's new at Modulos (2025-2026, sourced)
These sourced updates were researched on 2026-07-05 and are listed separately from the live comparison table so existing profile claims remain unchanged.
Modulos closed a CHF 8.7 million pre-Series A funding round, announced 22 July 2025, bringing its total funding to CHF 16.4 million; the company said the capital would scale the platform ahead of the EU AI Act's August 2026 enforcement deadline. No individual investors were named in the release.
Modulos was named an "Honorable Mention" (not Leader or Visionary) in the inaugural Gartner Magic Quadrant for AI Governance Platforms, published 16 June 2026 and announced by Modulos on 18 June 2026 -- a lower analyst-recognition tier than peers such as IBM (Leader) or OneTrust and ModelOp (Visionary) in the same report.
Modulos AG's own press-release archive dates its SOC 2 Type 2 certification announcement to 7 October 2025 ("Modulos AG Achieves SOC 2 Type 2 Certification, Reinforcing Commitment to Enterprise Security and Trust"), giving a specific timestamp for the SOC 2 Type II claim the existing file already states as current fact without a date.
Modulos published a named customer case study: JobCloud AG (operator of Switzerland's jobs.ch, jobup.ch and JobScout24.ch, serving 49,000+ companies) selected Modulos to inventory and risk-classify its candidate-ranking, application-filtering and job-matching AI systems -- which fall under the EU AI Act's Annex III high-risk employment category -- and to build the required technical documentation and human-oversight controls.
Modulos publishes its own head-to-head comparison pages against a broader competitor set than the existing file lists, including Vanta and OneTrust (not just AI-governance pure-plays like Credo AI). Its Modulos-vs-Vanta page frames Vanta as a startup/scale-up SOC 2 and ISO 27001 audit-automation platform that has bolted on AI-framework support, versus Modulos's ISO 42001/EU-AI-Act-native depth including CE-marking workflow support that it says Vanta refers out to specialists.
08Overlap and gaps
Credo AI vs Modulos: what the public data actually shows
Feature count is only a starting point. A customer should separate shared coverage from unique public signals, then test whether the vendor can run the required workflow end to end.
| Decision point | Public signal | Buyer interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Shared evidenced coverage | Vendor risk; AI governance; Policy/notice management; Approval workflows; Audit trail; Role-based access control | If your requirement sits here, compare workflow depth, implementation effort, evidence quality and price. |
| Only Credo AI publicly confirmed | Credo AI has no unique tracked public capability against Modulos in this dataset. | Keep Credo AI on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Modulos whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Only Modulos publicly confirmed | Multi-entity support; PDF/CSV/Excel export | Keep Modulos on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Credo AI whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Acompli reference column | DPIA/PIA assessments; RoPA / Article 30; Data mapping; Privacy risk; Retention management; Spreadsheet import | Use this as a third reference point where a narrower evidence-first privacy workflow may be preferable to a broader platform. |
09Capability comparison
Credo AI vs Modulos: capability by capability
Each capability is marked Y or N for Credo AI and Modulos based on what each vendor publicly documents, with Acompli shown in the final column.
| Capability | Credo AI | Modulos | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPIA/PIA assessments | N | N | Y |
| RoPA / Article 30 | N | N | Y |
| DSAR / privacy rights | N | N | N |
| Data mapping | N | N | Y |
| Vendor risk | Y | Y | Y |
| Privacy risk | N | N | Y |
| AI governance | Y | Y | Y |
| Consent management | N | N | N |
| Cookie/tracker scanning | N | N | N |
| Breach/incident management | N | N | N |
| Retention management | N | N | Y |
| Policy/notice management | Y | Y | N |
| Training module | N | N | N |
| Approval workflows | Y | Y | Y |
| Audit trail | Y | Y | Y |
| Role-based access control | Y | Y | Y |
| Multi-entity support | N | Y | Y |
| Spreadsheet import | N | N | Y |
| PDF/CSV/Excel export | N | Y | Y |
| Public pricing | N | N | N |
10Where each is stronger
Credo AI vs Modulos: the differences that matter
On the tracked capabilities, Credo AI and Modulos overlap on most rows; the differences that matter are the capabilities only one of them evidences, plus the depth and focus each brings to them.
- Only Modulos (not Credo AI) is evidenced for: Multi-entity support, PDF/CSV/Excel export.
- Credo AI: Purpose-built AI registry and discovery - inventory of AI systems, agents, models and shadow AI, with a dependency graph across agents, models, tools and data and auto-discovery across cloud environments.
- Credo AI: Continuous, AI-specific risk intelligence - an agentic risk-assessment library, automated red-teaming, drift detection and continuous evaluation of agent traces, well beyond a privacy-ops AI register.
- Modulos: A Governance Graph that maps one control across 13+ AI frameworks - EU AI Act, ISO 42001, ISO 23894, NIST AI RMF, ISO 27001, DORA, NIS2.
- Modulos: Monetary AI-risk quantification - from risk matrices to Monte Carlo with VaR/CVaR - so boards and audit committees see AI risk in EUR/CHF/USD rather than red/amber/green heatmaps.
11Customer due diligence
Questions customers should ask before choosing Credo AI or Modulos
A useful comparison should move beyond a product page checklist. Customers should ask each supplier to prove the same live workflow, with the same assumptions, so the difference between platform breadth and usable evidence becomes visible.
Run one real workflow
Ask Credo AI and Modulos to process the same example: new activity, assessment, RoPA update, supplier evidence, risk record, review and export.
Check evidence provenance
Confirm whether each important field in Credo AI and Modulos has a source, owner, review date and change history, not just a completed form.
Validate exports
Ask both vendors for a regulator-readable export for one legal entity, including controller and processor records where relevant.
Confirm commercial scope
Verify which modules, integrations, service hours, data residency options and support commitments are included in the quoted Credo AI or Modulos package.
12Shortlisting notes
Choosing between Credo AI and Modulos
Assess Credo AI and Modulos against the workflow you actually need to run - RoPA, DPIA, vendor and risk records - and how defensibly each exports its evidence.
- Shortlist Credo AI when the main problem is governing a large estate of AI models and agents against AI-specific frameworks, with model-level discovery, testing and conformity.
- Shortlist Modulos when the main problem is governing AI systems across the EU AI Act, ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF with quantified risk and production-runtime evidence.
- Ask Credo AI and Modulos to run one real scenario end to end - a new processing activity, its assessment, the RoPA update, supplier evidence, the privacy risk and an exportable audit trail - rather than a feature-by-feature demo.
13Ireland & UK
Credo AI vs Modulos: Article 30 records for Irish and UK teams
Both Credo AI and Modulos are weighed by Irish and UK privacy teams against the same fixed obligation: a record of processing activities under GDPR Article 30 - a controller record under Article 30(1) and a separate processor record under Article 30(2). In Ireland the Data Protection Commission (DPC) publishes Article 30 guidance; in the UK the ICO sets out what UK GDPR requires.
Whichever of Credo AI or Modulos an Irish or UK team weighs, the questions are the same: how deep is the Article 30 record, is EU and UK GDPR distinguished on one register, and can each legal entity produce a self-contained export its own supervisory authority can read?
| Article 30 check | Credo AI | Modulos | Why customers care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controller record | Ask Credo AI to show the Article 30(1) controller fields for one processing activity, including purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. | Ask Modulos to show the Article 30(1) controller fields for one processing activity, including purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. | A controller record must stand on its own when a regulator or auditor asks for it. |
| Processor record | Ask Credo AI to show Article 30(2) processor records separately from controller records, scoped to the controller on whose behalf processing is carried out. | Ask Modulos to show Article 30(2) processor records separately from controller records, scoped to the controller on whose behalf processing is carried out. | Many tools capture controller records more clearly than processor records; customers should verify both. |
| Ireland and UK fit | Ask Credo AI how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated or tagged for Irish and UK entities. | Ask Modulos how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated or tagged for Irish and UK entities. | Irish DPC and UK ICO expectations are close, but entity scope, local law references and export format still matter. |
| Standalone export | Ask Credo AI for a complete export that a legal entity could provide without giving the regulator product access. | Ask Modulos for a complete export that a legal entity could provide without giving the regulator product access. | A defensible record should be readable outside the platform, with enough context to explain the processing activity. |
- Article 30(1) and 30(2) - does each of Credo AI and Modulos model controller and processor records separately, scoped by legal entity?
- DPC (Ireland) and ICO (UK) - is EU and UK GDPR distinguished on one register for Credo AI or Modulos?
- Export - can Credo AI or Modulos let each legal entity produce a self-contained record its own supervisory authority can read?
Comparison FAQ
Credo AI vs Modulos questions answered
Acompli answers
Acompli: the focused alternative to both
Acompli overlap
Related Acompli workflows
Credo AI vs Acompli
Compare Credo AI directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open moduleModulos vs Acompli
Compare Modulos directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open moduleAssessments
Run DPIAs, LIAs, TIAs, processor reviews and AI Act assessments with templates, AI support and human approval.
Open moduleRoPA management
Maintain Article 30 records that stay linked to approved assessments, systems, suppliers and transfers.
Open moduleCompare Credo AI and Modulos against a real workflow.
Bring one RoPA, DPIA, vendor, risk or AI-governance requirement and map which parts Credo AI covers, which Modulos covers, and where each option fits.
Acompli architecture
One governed foundation. Five connected modules.
Imported systems, suppliers, policies, DPIAs and RoPA spreadsheets become the shared evidence model for assessments, risk, records, third-party oversight and data mapping.
- OnboardingImport DPIAs, RoPA spreadsheets, suppliers, systems, policies and documents.
- AssessmentsRun DPIAs, LIAs, TIAs, processor reviews and AI Act assessments with human approval.
- RiskExtract candidate risks from approved evidence and assign treatment plans.
- RoPAMaintain Article 30 records linked to assessments, systems, suppliers and transfers.
- Third-PartyRecord suppliers once, then reference them across assessments, RoPA, risk and maps.
- Data MappingBuild a living view of systems, suppliers, locations, categories and transfers.
Point tools create records. Acompli connects them.