Matproof vs Strike Graph: Compliance Platforms for EU Companies Compared

Introduction

Strike Graph markets itself as AI-powered compliance for modern businesses. The pitch is appealing: let artificial intelligence handle the heavy lifting of compliance, reduce manual work, and get certified faster. For a US-based SaaS company pursuing its first SOC 2 report, Strike Graph delivers on that promise reasonably well. The AI assists with control mapping, suggests evidence, and streamlines the audit preparation process.

But there is a pattern that European compliance teams encounter repeatedly. They evaluate a US-built compliance tool, run a proof of concept on SOC 2, and everything looks promising. Then someone on the team asks: "What about DORA?" Silence. "Where is the NIS2 module?" Nothing. "Can we generate the BaFin-required documentation in German?" Not available. "Where exactly is our compliance data stored?" US data centers.

This pattern is not unique to Strike Graph. It is the predictable outcome of evaluating platforms built for the US market and expecting them to serve EU financial regulatory requirements. Strike Graph was founded in Seattle, raised capital from US investors, and built its product for the compliance frameworks that US companies need. There is nothing wrong with that. But European financial institutions subject to DORA, overseen by BaFin or other EU supervisory authorities, and bound by GDPR's strict data handling requirements need a platform built for their reality.

This comparison examines where Strike Graph works, where it does not for EU-regulated entities, and how Matproof fills the specific gaps that European financial services compliance demands.

Quick Comparison Overview

Framework Coverage

Strike Graph covers the compliance frameworks that US businesses encounter most often: SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, and a selection of other standards. The platform's strength lies in its AI-assisted approach to these frameworks, where the system suggests relevant controls based on your business profile and helps map evidence to audit requirements. For US companies operating within these frameworks, the coverage is reasonable.

The framework gaps become apparent when you look at EU-specific regulations. DORA is the most significant absence. The Digital Operational Resilience Act is not a niche regulation; it is the foundational framework for ICT risk management in European financial services, applicable to over 22,000 entities including banks, insurance companies, investment firms, payment institutions, and their critical ICT third-party providers. Strike Graph offers no DORA module, no mapping to DORA's five pillars (ICT risk management, incident reporting, resilience testing, third-party risk management, and information sharing per Article 45), and no templates for the specific documentation that European supervisory authorities require.

NIS2 is also absent. As the directive that establishes cybersecurity requirements for essential and important entities across the EU, NIS2 Article 21 imposes obligations that overlap with but are distinct from existing standards. Organizations need to demonstrate compliance with specific risk management measures, incident reporting requirements (notification within 24 hours of becoming aware of a significant incident per Article 23), and supply chain security obligations. Strike Graph does not address any of these.

Matproof provides structured support for DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2, NIS2, and GDPR as an integrated compliance environment. Each framework has its own module with article-level or control-level mapping, but the modules share a common control library. This means that implementing a control for one framework automatically satisfies the corresponding requirements in other frameworks where the same control applies. For a German bank that needs DORA compliance, ISO 27001 certification, and SOC 2 attestation, this integrated approach eliminates the redundant work of maintaining three separate control sets and collecting the same evidence three times.

EU Compliance and Data Residency

Strike Graph's infrastructure is based in the United States. All compliance data, including risk assessments, control documentation, evidence files, policy documents, vendor evaluations, and audit reports, is processed and stored on US servers. For a US company, this is unremarkable. For a European financial institution, it raises several concrete issues.

First, GDPR Article 44 establishes that personal data transfers to third countries require specific legal safeguards. While the EU-US Data Privacy Framework provides a current legal basis, the history of invalidated transfer mechanisms (Safe Harbor in 2015, Privacy Shield in 2020) makes reliance on any single framework a risk factor. Compliance platforms routinely process personal data: employee information, access logs, security incident details involving individuals, and HR policy attestations. Each of these data points falls under GDPR's transfer restrictions.

Second, and more specific to financial services, DORA Article 28(2) requires financial entities to assess the geographical location of data processing and the applicable legal and regulatory framework when evaluating ICT third-party providers. A compliance platform is itself an ICT third-party provider. Storing your institution's complete compliance posture, including known vulnerabilities, risk treatment plans, and audit findings, on US infrastructure means that this sensitive information is subject to US legal processes, including the CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act), which permits US authorities to compel disclosure of data regardless of where it is physically stored.

For institutions supervised by BaFin, this creates a tangible audit risk. BaFin's BAIT circular (Section II.8) specifies that outsourcing of IT activities must not impair the institution's orderliness, including the ability of BaFin and the Bundesbank to carry out their supervisory functions. Storing critical compliance data under a foreign jurisdiction introduces complexity that examiners will question.

Matproof resolves these concerns structurally. All data resides in German data centers, subject to German law and EU regulations. There is no cross-border data transfer to evaluate, no dependence on international data transfer frameworks, and no CLOUD Act exposure. When a BaFin examiner asks where compliance data is stored, the answer is straightforward: Germany. That simplicity has real value in supervisory interactions.

Matproof also generates policies and compliance documentation in both German and English. BaFin expects documentation in German for many regulatory filings and supervisory communications. Strike Graph's English-only output means European institutions must either translate every policy (an expensive and error-prone process for technical regulatory documents) or maintain a parallel set of German-language documents outside the platform, defeating the purpose of centralized compliance management.

Pricing and Value

Strike Graph pricing starts at approximately 8,000 USD/year (roughly 7,400 EUR) for its base tier, covering a single framework. Additional frameworks, integrations, and features increase the annual cost. The platform positions itself as affordable relative to enterprise GRC tools, which is accurate for US mid-market companies.

Matproof starts at approximately 8,000 EUR/year with access to multiple frameworks included in the base offering. DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2, NIS2, and GDPR modules are available without per-framework surcharges.

The pricing comparison becomes more meaningful when you account for the full cost of achieving EU compliance. A European financial institution using Strike Graph for SOC 2 and ISO 27001 will still face these additional costs:

• DORA consulting: 30,000-80,000 EUR for implementation support from specialized consultants, since the platform provides no DORA module
• NIS2 gap analysis and implementation: 15,000-30,000 EUR for external advisory services
• Policy translation: 5,000-15,000 EUR annually for professional translation of compliance policies into German
• Data residency remediation: Potential costs if supervisory authorities flag the US data storage as a risk factor during examinations
• Duplicate evidence collection: Internal labor costs for collecting and formatting evidence that serves DORA requirements separately from the platform's SOC 2 and ISO 27001 workflows

These supplementary costs frequently total 60,000-130,000 EUR, transforming what appeared to be a cost-effective platform choice into a significantly more expensive overall compliance program. Matproof's integrated approach folds these requirements into the platform itself, making the total cost of ownership substantially lower for multi-framework EU compliance.

Who Should Choose What

Choose Strike Graph if:

• Your company is US-based and serves primarily US customers
• SOC 2, HIPAA, or PCI DSS are your primary compliance requirements
• You operate outside the scope of DORA and NIS2
• EU data residency is not a concern for your organization
• You value AI-assisted compliance for US-centric frameworks
• Your compliance documentation needs are exclusively in English

Choose Matproof if:

• You are a European financial institution, fintech, insurtech, or payment provider subject to DORA
• You need to comply with multiple EU frameworks simultaneously (DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2, NIS2, GDPR)
• A European supervisory authority (BaFin, ACPR, FCA, DNB, or similar) oversees your operations
• EU data residency is a regulatory requirement or strong expectation from your supervisors
• You need German-language compliance documentation
• You want a single platform that maps controls across all required frameworks
• Your compliance program must withstand scrutiny from EU regulators, not just pass a SOC 2 audit

The choice often reflects a deeper strategic question: is your compliance program designed around US standards that you then adapt for Europe, or is it built on European requirements from the start? For regulated EU financial institutions, the second approach is almost always more efficient and less risky.

The Bottom Line

Strike Graph is a capable AI-powered compliance platform for the US market. Its approach to SOC 2, ISO 27001, and HIPAA serves US SMBs and mid-market companies well. The AI features genuinely reduce manual effort for those frameworks, and the pricing is accessible for growing companies.

For European financial services, Strike Graph has three structural limitations that no feature update can quickly resolve. First, no DORA or NIS2 support, meaning the two most important current EU regulatory frameworks for financial institutions are simply missing. Second, US-based data infrastructure that creates ongoing questions about data residency, CLOUD Act exposure, and supervisory access. Third, English-only documentation that does not meet the expectations of German-speaking regulators.

Matproof exists precisely for the organizations that encounter these limitations. It provides full DORA compliance mapped to specific articles and RTS requirements, integrated multi-framework support that reduces total compliance effort, 100% EU data residency in German data centers, and bilingual policy generation. For a European financial institution that needs to satisfy BaFin, maintain ISO 27001, and deliver SOC 2 reports to enterprise clients, Matproof is built for the job.

Evaluate how Matproof fits your regulatory requirements with a free compliance assessment at matproof.com/contact.

FAQ

Does Strike Graph offer any EU-specific compliance features?

Strike Graph supports ISO 27001 and has some GDPR-related privacy controls, but it does not offer dedicated modules for DORA, NIS2, or other EU-specific financial regulations. The platform was built for the US market, and its framework library reflects that origin. European organizations that need DORA or NIS2 compliance will need to supplement Strike Graph with separate tools or consulting services.

How does the CLOUD Act affect compliance data stored with US platforms?

The CLOUD Act (enacted in 2018) permits US law enforcement to compel US-based technology companies to disclose data stored on their servers, regardless of where the data is physically located. For European financial institutions, this means that compliance data stored with a US provider, which may include risk assessments, security vulnerabilities, and incident reports, could theoretically be disclosed under US legal processes. While this scenario is not common, it represents a jurisdictional risk that EU supervisory authorities are increasingly aware of. Hosting compliance data with an EU-based provider like Matproof eliminates this exposure entirely.

Can Strike Graph's AI features compensate for the missing DORA module?

AI-assisted control mapping and evidence suggestion are useful features, but they cannot substitute for a structured DORA compliance module. DORA has specific requirements: an ICT risk management framework per Article 5, incident classification and reporting per Articles 17-23 with defined timelines and notification templates, a register of ICT third-party arrangements per Article 28(3), and resilience testing requirements per Articles 24-27. These require purpose-built workflows, templates, and reporting mechanisms that general-purpose AI suggestions cannot replicate. Matproof's DORA module provides these structured elements mapped directly to the regulation's text and the related RTS and ITS published by the European Supervisory Authorities.

Is it worth switching from Strike Graph to Matproof if we already started our SOC 2 process?

If SOC 2 is your only compliance requirement and you have no EU regulatory obligations, completing the process with Strike Graph makes sense. However, if you know that DORA compliance, ISO 27001 certification, or NIS2 obligations are on your roadmap within the next 12 months, switching sooner reduces total effort. Migrating controls and evidence between platforms is disruptive but manageable. The cost of that one-time migration is typically lower than the cost of running a US-focused platform alongside separate DORA and NIS2 consulting engagements for 12 or more months.