Multi-framework gap analysis
Analyze the same document against GDPR, SOC 2, HIPAA, ISO 27001, DORA, NIS2, AI Act and PCI-DSS in one pass. Each gap is rated CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW with the specific article or control reference.
GRC / Regulatory, model in Intel TDX
AI Compliance Officer on a TEE model in Intel TDX
Multi-framework gap analysis (GDPR, SOX, HIPAA, SOC 2, DORA, AI Act) without leaking your security posture.
Compliance documents reveal more about your security posture than almost anything else you write, vulnerabilities, data flows, processor chains, control failures. Here, documents are parsed by our servers and passed to an open-weight model in an Intel TDX enclave, under a French controller. The agent returns article-level gap analysis, a quantified risk register and an audit-readiness checklist. Built for teams running 5+ frameworks in parallel.
Built for: DPOs, Chief Compliance Officers, Heads of Risk, CISOs, Internal Audit Directors
The pain
External compliance audits cost $50-200K each. Maintaining compliance across GDPR, SOC 2, HIPAA, DORA and AI Act takes dedicated headcount, and pasting policies and DPIAs into a general-purpose AI tool exposes the exact playbook an attacker would want.
The outcome
Run GDPR + SOC 2 + HIPAA gap analysis on your documents in one pass, in minutes, with article-level citations and a quantified risk register.
Capabilities
What the Compliance Officer does on every document, with a TEE model that runs inside an Intel TDX hardware enclave.
Policy-to-regulation mapping
Article-level citations ("GDPR Art. 28(3)(a)", "SOC 2 CC6.1", "HIPAA §164.312") so an auditor can trace every claim back to the source. No vague "complies with GDPR".
Quantified risk register
Likelihood × impact scoring, plus monetary exposure ("GDPR Art. 83, up to 4% of global turnover or €20M"; "HIPAA, up to $1.9M per category per year"). Maps to your existing risk framework.
Audit-readiness checklist
Generates the evidence checklist an auditor would request, marked Available / Partial / Missing, so you know what to collect before the audit kick-off, not during.
Data flow compliance
Maps personal data flows against legal basis, transfer mechanisms (post-Schrems II), retention and processor agreements. Flags missing DPIA on high-risk processing.
Board summary in plain English
Five bullets for the risk committee: posture rating, top three exposures, financial impact range, recommended budget ask, comparable enforcement actions. No jargon.
How it works, end to end
Four steps from upload to export. Your document is parsed by our servers and passed to a TEE model; never used for training.
- 01
Upload policy or evidence
Privacy policy, DPIA, RoPA, security policy, incident response plan, vendor agreement, internal audit report, drop in PDF or DOCX. Files go over TLS, are parsed by our servers and passed to a TEE model; never used for training.
- 02
Inference inside Intel TDX
The model runs inside an Intel TDX hardware enclave, with memory encrypted by the CPU during inference. Nothing is sent to OpenAI, Anthropic or Google.
- 03
Read framework-by-framework gap
For each applicable regulation: compliance status, gap list with severity, evidence needed, and a remediation roadmap split into Immediate / Short-term / Medium-term.
- 04
Share with the risk committee
Markdown for risk committee decks or printed to PDF for the auditor; the OpenAI-compatible API (Pro tier) for your own GRC scripts.
Frameworks and regulations covered
Every output cites the specific article, section or control. The Intel TDX hardware boundary handles the data-protection side; the agent handles the analytical side.
GDPRCCPA / CPRAHIPAASOXSOC 2 (Trust Services Criteria)ISO 27001 / 27701PCI-DSS v4.0DORA (EU financial)NIS2 DirectiveEU AI ActNIST CSF 2.0
What people actually ask it
Real prompts from grc / regulatory teams.
Audit this privacy policy against GDPR and CCPA, where are the gaps?
We're a fintech processing EU customer data. Run a DORA + GDPR gap analysis.
Generate a risk register from this security policy. Quantify the exposure.
Our SOC 2 audit is in 60 days. What evidence should we prepare?
Sample output
Prompt: Review this DPA, does it meet GDPR Art. 28 requirements for a processor?
Output: PARTIAL. Compliant: Art. 28(3)(b) confidentiality, 28(3)(d) sub-processor consent, 28(3)(f) deletion. GAPS: Art. 28(3)(a), instruction limitation is too permissive ("as reasonably required"); Art. 28(3)(c) security measures reference "industry standard" without specifying which standard; Art. 28(3)(h) audit rights restricted to once per year with 90-day notice, supervisory authorities consider this unenforceable. Recommend redline before signature.
Prompt: We just adopted AI for customer scoring. Do we need a DPIA under the EU AI Act?
Output: Yes, automated decision-making with legal/significant effect on natural persons triggers BOTH GDPR Art. 35 DPIA AND AI Act Annex III high-risk classification (credit/financial scoring). You need: (1) DPIA under GDPR Art. 35; (2) Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment under AI Act Art. 27; (3) Conformity assessment under AI Act Art. 43; (4) Registration in the EU AI database before deployment.
Pricing
Every tier runs inside Intel TDX hardware enclaves. Plans stay in sync with /pricing.
Plus
$20/mo
1,000 requests/month, 1 seat. For solo DPOs, fractional CISOs, independent auditors.
Starter
$349/mo
3 seats, 2,000 requests/month, 100 MB uploads, audit log. For compliance teams at growth-stage companies.
Pro
$1,199/mo
10 seats, 5,000 requests/month, 500 MB uploads, API access for GRC platform integration.
Enterprise
Contact sales
Unlimited seats, fine-tuning on your control library, SSO/SAML, dedicated TDX capacity, signed DPA, EU-hosted customer database.
AI Compliance Officer vs the alternatives
Honest comparison. Hardware-rooted confidentiality is what most alternatives are missing.
| Alternative | Pros | Cons vs VoltageGPU |
|---|---|---|
| Vanta / Drata |
|
|
| OneTrust |
|
|
| ChatGPT Enterprise |
|
|
FAQ
Where does my compliance data physically live and run?
Documents are parsed by our servers and passed to an open-weight model in an Intel TDX enclave; never used for training. The controller is VOLTAGE EI (France, SIREN 943 808 824); compute sub-processors are US-based and listed. During inference, the host CPU encrypts the enclave memory in hardware.
How is this different from Vanta or Drata?
Vanta and Drata are control-monitoring platforms, they track whether you have evidence, not whether your documents actually comply with the regulation text. The Compliance Officer agent reads the documents and gives you article-level gap analysis. The two are complementary.
Can it handle the EU AI Act?
Yes. Coverage includes Annex III high-risk classification, Art. 9 risk management, Art. 10 data governance, Art. 14 human oversight, Art. 15 accuracy/robustness, FRIA under Art. 27 and conformity assessment under Art. 43. The agent will tell you which AI Act articles apply to your specific use case.
Will an auditor accept the output as evidence?
The output is gap analysis and risk identification, auditors use it to focus their work, not to replace it. Use it pre-audit to surface issues, then resolve them before the auditor arrives. Output includes article-level citations every auditor will recognize.
Which compliance certifications do you yourself hold?
None yet. VOLTAGE EI is a French operator under GDPR, with an Art. 28 DPA signed on request. Not SOC 2 certified yet (status on /trust), and no ISO 27001 certification. Intel TDX attestation covers the enclave; it is not a certification.
Can I get a custom prompt for our internal framework?
Yes, on the Enterprise tier. We tune the system prompt and (optionally) fine-tune the model on your internal control catalog, your DPIA template, your incident response playbook. Fine-tuning runs inside a confidential VM.
Do I get API access?
Yes, on the Pro tier ($1,199/mo). The API is OpenAI-compatible, change the base URL, keep your SDK. Requests pass through our relay, which sees them in clear (TLS ends at our host). To keep plaintext off our servers, run your own inference server in a Confidential VM and terminate TLS inside its trust domain. There are no native connectors; you can call it from your own scripts, for example to analyze policy drafts before they go into Vanta, Drata, OneTrust or Archer.
How does pricing compare to external audit support?
External Big Four advisory runs $300-800/hr fully loaded. A single multi-framework readiness assessment can cost $50-200K. Starter handles roughly 50 documents/month for $349; Pro handles 500 documents/month for $1,199. It covers first-pass analysis, not the audit opinion.
Keep exploring
Run Compliance Officer on hardware you can prove
Model in an Intel TDX enclave, with an attestation of its serving instances on your nonce. French company (VOLTAGE EI), compute at US sub-processors under SCCs. Cancel anytime.