Compare

Breadth or depth. Pick the one you actually need.

Three different things get called an "AI regulation tracker". A global tracker covers many jurisdictions at one row each. A compliance suite gives you workflow with a regulatory module attached. We do one regulation in working depth, down to the member-state layer, and push it into your system. None of the three is a better product in the abstract — they answer different questions.

Compared 2026-08-04 · figures read from the vendors' own public pages

Side by side

Where another category is stronger, the row is marked. A comparison you win on every line is a sales sheet, not a comparison.

  AI Act Radar Broad global trackers Compliance suites
  One regulation, in depth Many jurisdictions, at a glance Workflow, audit trail, controls
Coverage They lead The EU AI Act, plus 11 member-state implementations 15 regions worldwide, 60 more shaded at status level Whatever the vendor licenses — often EU, US, UK privacy and AI together
Depth per act 36 articles of the AI Act separately, each with trigger, duty and evidence, plus a role matrix The act summarised as a handful of blocks Control mappings, usually derived from a secondary summary
National layer 11 member states compared: implementing act, authority, sandbox, penalties Present, but thin — Germany is one row; France and the Netherlands are absent Varies by tier; usually the largest markets only
Delivery Push — signed webhook into your system, plus REST and MCP if you prefer to ask Pull — REST, MCP, RSS/JSON feeds, calendar subscriptions, email alerts Pull — dashboard and login; email digests on some tiers
Languages English and German, both sides of the site and the payloads English English, sometimes German at enterprise tier
Data licence They lead Delivered under a B2B contract. Open schema, full export, no lock-in — but not open data CC BY 4.0 — the whole register downloadable, attribution only Proprietary. Export usually limited to reports
Price They lead Free forever for your own team. Licence from €500 / month to ship it in your product Free tier, then roughly $29–99 / month Four to five figures a year, quoted after a sales call
Coverage Their column

On breadth, a global tracker wins outright and we do not compete. AI Law Radar publishes 82 obligations across 15 regions; 49 of those are United States entries and 8 are EU. We publish nothing outside the EU.

Depth per act Our column

The 8 EU rows in AI Law Radar are Art. 5, Art. 50, Annex I, Annex III, GPAI incl. Annex XI, Art. 101, the new CSAM prohibitions and Implementing Regulation 2026/1755. That is the right resolution for a world map and too coarse to plan a conformity assessment against.

National layer Our column

Fair to the other side: a German entry appeared in the AI Law Radar dataset by 2026-08-04 (KI-MIG, BNetzA, penalties). One country as one row is a useful note. It does not tell you which authority is actually operational, or which sandbox is open.

Delivery Our column

This is a real difference but a narrow one. Feeds and email alerts also reach you without you asking; what a webhook adds is a signed POST your own code can act on, with retries, rather than a document a person has to open.

Languages Our column

Matters if your filings, your works council and your regulator correspondence are in German. Irrelevant otherwise — and we say so rather than dress it up as a universal advantage.

Data licence Their column

The clearest row where someone else is ahead. AI Law Radar publishes obligations.json openly under CC BY 4.0. You can build on their data without asking. You cannot do that with ours today.

Price Their column

A broad tracker is an order of magnitude cheaper than our planned pricing, and its free tier is generous. If a free map answers your question, take the free map — see /pricing for what we think the difference buys.

Read this first

When the other tool fits better.

We would rather lose a signup than have someone pay for the wrong shape of tool. Three cases where you should not choose us.

You operate in more than one jurisdiction

If you ship into the EU and California, Colorado, the UK, China or Korea, a broad global tracker is the right buy and we are not a substitute. One free profile on a tool like AI Law Radar tells you what binds you across 15 regions, with a primary source per entry and an open dataset. We would have nothing to say about six of your seven markets.

Verdict: use a global tracker. Add us only if the EU turns into your hardest market.

You need the workflow, not the signal

Risk register, conformity-assessment evidence, control ownership, an audit trail your auditor accepts — that is a compliance suite, and building one is not what we are doing. We are the upstream layer: structured, dated updates you can feed into whatever system holds your evidence.

Verdict: buy the suite. We can sit in front of it, not instead of it.

You need someone to be liable

We publish facts with their sources. We do not tell you whether your system is high-risk, and no tracker of any kind can carry that judgement for you. If the question is "are we in scope", that is counsel's answer, and none of the three columns above replaces it.

Verdict: instruct a lawyer. Bring the dated source list with you.

Where we do fit

One regulation, at the resolution you have to work at.

The case for us is narrow on purpose. You are shipping under the EU AI Act, the EU is the market that decides whether you ship, and the questions on your desk are which article bites, which German or French authority asks, and what changed since last week. At that resolution a block called "high-risk obligations" is not enough, and a quarterly newsletter arrives after the decision.

That is what we build: 36 articles held separately with trigger, duty and evidence; 11 member states compared on authority, sandbox and penalties; 13 official sources watched on a stated cadence; every change pushed to a signed endpoint in English and German. If that is not your problem, one of the columns above is a better answer than we are.

Informational content only, not legal advice. Third-party figures were read from the vendors' own public pages and datasets on 2026-08-04; capabilities, coverage and prices change, and the linked source is always more current than this page. Compliance-suite pricing is a range reported by buyers rather than a published list price, because these vendors do not publish one. Nothing here is a statement about the quality of another vendor's work.