Inclusion standard
A vendor is included publicly only when there is enough primary-source evidence to make a defensible claim about what it does. We prefer explicit product and framework pages over blog-level thought leadership.
Methodology
How AI Governance Vendors evaluates AI governance vendors
This directory is editorial, not vendor-submitted by default. Listings are added and described using official product pages, framework pages, documentation, and other primary materials.
How frameworks are handled
Framework support is listed conservatively. If a vendor has explicit pages or product claims for a framework like EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, or ISO 42001, we include it. If support looks adjacent or implied rather than explicit, we leave it out or narrow the claim.
How categories are handled
Not every listing is a full governance platform. Some are advisory firms, certification-oriented providers, or adjacent control layers. Those distinctions matter, so company type is editorially normalized instead of copied from vendor messaging.
How summaries are written
Short descriptions are editorial summaries. They compress what we believe a buyer should understand quickly: who the product is for, which workflows it supports, and where it fits in the market.
What is not verified yet
Pricing, deployment details, customer counts, and geography can be unevenly disclosed by vendors. Where those points are unclear, we either omit them from the public directory or keep them in the research wiki until they are better supported.
How to use the directory
Use this site as a structured shortlist, not a final procurement decision. Buyers should still validate security posture, contract terms, implementation scope, and proof of framework coverage directly with the vendor.