Allgress Risk Register vs SAFE Cyber Risk Quantification: Side-by-Side Comparison (2026)

Allgress Risk Register

Mid-market and enterprise risk and compliance teams need a tool that actually tracks risk ownership across business units instead of letting remediation fall into gaps, and Allgress Risk Register does this through standardized workflows and cross-module escalation from compliance, incident, and vulnerability teams. The platform covers NIST GV.RM and GV.OV functions, meaning it forces you to document risk appetite upfront and feeds monitoring results back into strategy adjustments rather than becoming a static spreadsheet. Skip this if your organization treats risk registration as a one-time audit requirement; Allgress assumes continuous tracking and active ownership, which takes discipline to maintain.

SAFE Cyber Risk Quantification

Enterprise risk committees tired of translating technical risk into board language should start with SAFE Cyber Risk Quantification; it runs FAIR analysis automatically and outputs dollar-based loss exposure that CFOs and audit committees actually understand without a security translator in the room. The platform covers both GV.RM and GV.OV functions, meaning it bridges strategy-setting and performance oversight instead of forcing you to stitch together separate tools for each. Skip this if your board wants narrative risk stories instead of quantified financial exposure, or if you need deep integration with your existing GRC platform; SAFE is built for organizations that have decided quantification is non-negotiable.