IntegrityNext Alternatives
5 of 12 products that share a software category or a capability term with IntegrityNext, matched on what their records document.
Alternative products to investigate
Among the products whose records share the most documented attributes with IntegrityNext: EUDR Passport, Exiger, Fair Supply, iPRO and osapiens HUB (alphabetical, not a ranking).
IntegrityNext record checked 10 October 2026. Sources and limitations in the IntegrityNext profile · How candidates are matched · Already using IntegrityNext? What to check before switching
IntegrityNext's own record: categories, offline status, pricing and trial
Software categories: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Offline filter: Not yet classified. Pricing: IntegrityNext has no verified published paid amount recorded (model: “Quote-based; EUDR Starter at a fixed annual price”). Trial: trial status not established.
- EUDR Passport
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence and EUDR Compliance
Why listed, where it differs, against IntegrityNext
Why listed: Categories shared with IntegrityNext: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with IntegrityNext: EUDR Compliance. Capability names sharing a term: IntegrityNext's “Supply chain due diligence” and EUDR Passport's “EUDR due diligence”; IntegrityNext's “EUDR due diligence” and EUDR Passport's “Guided due diligence process”.
Where it differs: Pricing: EUDR Passport has a published amount recorded as “From €90 per product profile per year” (check product, module and purchase scope); IntegrityNext has no verified published paid amount recorded. Conditional in EUDR Passport's record: “Reference number validity checks”.
Against IntegrityNext: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: EUDR Passport, “Risk assessment and resolution modules” and “Statement filing and authorised-representative option”; IntegrityNext, “LkSG and Norwegian Transparency Act support” and “Integrations and platform hosting”. Pricing model: EUDR Passport, “Per product profile, annual”; IntegrityNext, “Quote-based; EUDR Starter at a fixed annual price”.
- Exiger
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Why listed, where it differs, against IntegrityNext
Why listed: Categories shared with IntegrityNext: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with IntegrityNext: Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Capability names sharing a term: IntegrityNext's “Supply chain due diligence” and Exiger's “Forced labour supply chain mapping”; IntegrityNext's “EUDR due diligence” and Exiger's “Third-party due diligence workflow”. Pricing: Exiger and IntegrityNext have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in Exiger's record: “UFLPA-specific forced labour mapping” and “Product-level modern slavery data and integrations”.
Against IntegrityNext: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: Exiger, “Security certifications”. Pricing model: Exiger, “Quote-based”; IntegrityNext, “Quote-based; EUDR Starter at a fixed annual price”.
- Fair Supply
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Why listed, where it differs, against IntegrityNext
Why listed: Categories shared with IntegrityNext: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with IntegrityNext: Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Capability names sharing a term: IntegrityNext's “Supply chain due diligence” and Fair Supply's “Supplier due diligence and remediation tracking”; IntegrityNext's “Multilingual supplier questionnaires and corrective actions” and Fair Supply's “Supplier self-assessment questionnaires and scoring”. Pricing: Fair Supply and IntegrityNext have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in Fair Supply's record: “Modelled multi-tier risk from names and spend”.
Against IntegrityNext: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: Fair Supply, “Versioned audit trail” and “Information security certification”; IntegrityNext, “Forced labour screening and monitoring” and “LkSG and Norwegian Transparency Act support” (2 of 3). Pricing model: Fair Supply, “Quote-based”; IntegrityNext, “Quote-based; EUDR Starter at a fixed annual price”.
- iPRO
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Why listed, where it differs, against IntegrityNext
Why listed: Categories shared with IntegrityNext: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with IntegrityNext: Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Capability names sharing a term: IntegrityNext's “Multilingual supplier questionnaires and corrective actions” and iPRO's “Questionnaire-based assessment of organisation and suppliers”. Pricing: iPRO and IntegrityNext have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in iPRO's record (2 of 3 capabilities): “Statement support by jurisdiction” and “Supplier risk profiles and draft statement”.
Against IntegrityNext: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: iPRO, “Information security certification”; IntegrityNext, “Forced labour screening and monitoring”. Pricing model: iPRO, “Quote-based”; IntegrityNext, “Quote-based; EUDR Starter at a fixed annual price”.
- osapiens HUB
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Supplier Due Diligence and EUDR Compliance
Why listed, where it differs, against IntegrityNext
Why listed: Categories shared with IntegrityNext: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with IntegrityNext: Supplier Due Diligence and EUDR Compliance. Capability names sharing a term: IntegrityNext's “Supply chain due diligence” and osapiens HUB's “EUDR due diligence”; IntegrityNext's “Multilingual supplier questionnaires and corrective actions” and osapiens HUB's “Supplier questionnaires and risk”. Pricing: osapiens HUB and IntegrityNext have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Offline filter: osapiens HUB, documented offline workflow; IntegrityNext, not yet classified. Software categories assigned to osapiens HUB only: Carbon Accounting and Audit Management. Conditional in osapiens HUB's record (2 of 5 capabilities): “Product carbon footprints” and “Reporting and disclosure preparation”.
Against IntegrityNext: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: osapiens HUB, “Corporate carbon data collection” and “Offline mobile audits” (2 of 3); IntegrityNext, “LkSG and Norwegian Transparency Act support”. Pricing model: osapiens HUB, “Contact vendor”; IntegrityNext, “Quote-based; EUDR Starter at a fixed annual price”.
Continue the alternatives research
Check the same evidence-led view from each candidate's starting point; its matched set may differ because the documented record differs.
7 more not listed. Browse the Supply Chain Due Diligence category.
Already using IntegrityNext? What its record leaves open
Limitations the IntegrityNext profile records:
- Modern slavery statement workflow needs a demo
- Pricing is not published
Available only under stated conditions or not documented (checked 10 October 2026): Product-based supply chain mapping. Check each against the contract you hold.
Listed candidates that document a capability with a related name (confirm the scope in a demo):
- “Product-based supply chain mapping”: Exiger's “Forced labour supply chain mapping”.
IntegrityNext evaluation checks, for every candidate
- Modern slavery content within a multi-law platform: Ask to see the forced labour and modern slavery assessment questions and outputs separately from LkSG content. Check which are configurable and what a statement section would contain. Source
- Screening data and false positives: The forced labor page cites the UFLPA Entity List, sanctions data and news monitoring. Run a test list, record matches and how a reviewer clears or escalates a false match, and keep the decision record. Source
- Supplier questionnaire burden: The pages describe 14-language questionnaires and a free supplier experience for the EUDR product. Ask whether suppliers pay in any case, how many questions they answer and how responses are reused across customers. Source
- Sub-tier mapping input requirements: The visibility page refers to product data with HS codes, DUNS numbers and NACE classes. Test with a real product list and measure how many sub-tier links are confirmed rather than modelled. Source
- Corrective action and complaints records: Raise a test finding and follow it through assignment, evidence and closure. Check for a complaints procedure record under the LkSG content, and export the resulting audit trail. Source
- Legal validation, implementation and pricing: The LkSG and NTA pages state a typical 6 to 8 week project and a legal opinion for the NTA. Ask for the opinion, the implementation plan and written pricing, including EUDR Starter limits beyond 50 suppliers. Source
Leaving IntegrityNext: what to plan for
- Before leaving, find out which published statements or filings drew on forced-labour screening output. The record says to confirm what statement output exists for each of the UK, Australian, Canadian and Californian laws it names rather than inferring it from screening, so the archive to keep is the output actually filed, not only the supplier list.
- Suppliers have answered standardised questionnaires, in 14 languages according to the vendor pages, and may hold a free supplier account. A move may ask them to respond again elsewhere, so settle early the points the record leaves open: whether suppliers pay in any case and how responses are reused across customers.
- If the EUDR Starter package is in use, prepare two inventories: the supplier count against the 50-supplier limit, and the plot geodata and submitted statements held for each product. The record states no amount for the fixed annual price and asks for renewal terms and the position beyond that limit in writing.
Who may have reason to stay with IntegrityNext
- A team using the German supply chain module holds a process the record describes as risk analysis, preventive and remedial measures, a complaints procedure and reporting. A candidate has to be checked against each of those parts, and the complaints record is the one the record singles out for an export test.
- A programme that relies on the Norwegian Transparency Act page's statement of a legal opinion should obtain that opinion's scope and date before treating it as covering the configuration in use. The record asks for exactly that and does not itself verify the opinion.
- A team whose suppliers already appear in the vendor's pre-onboarded network has links a replacement would have to recreate. The record calls the figure of over 2 million suppliers a vendor figure and says the mapped share of your own suppliers needs testing, so measure it before counting the network as a reason to stay.
What to test in a trial of a replacement for IntegrityNext
- Load a test list that includes a known name and a near-match, then record how a reviewer clears or escalates each match and keep the decision record. The record's sequence ends by exporting the audit trail and asking how it would appear in a modern slavery statement, which gives a candidate a concrete output to show.
- Give each candidate the same real product list and count how many sub-tier links come back confirmed and how many are modelled. The record names HS codes, DUNS numbers and NACE classes as inputs, so check which of those identifiers your own data holds before the trial starts.
- Record a complaint and follow it through the system, asking whether it feeds the risk analysis, then generate the stakeholder report and read what it contains. The record's sequence for one law runs from risk analysis through a preventive measure to closure, which fits a single trial scenario.
Conditions and sources in the IntegrityNext profile · Recorded commercial terms
IntegrityNext alternatives — frequently asked questions
Which IntegrityNext alternatives have published amounts?
Published amounts (see each profile's product, module and purchase scope): EUDR Passport. No verified published paid amount recorded: Exiger, Fair Supply, iPRO and osapiens HUB. IntegrityNext has no verified published paid amount recorded.
Which IntegrityNext alternatives have a documented offline workflow?
Documented offline workflow: osapiens HUB. Not yet classified: EUDR Passport, Exiger, Fair Supply and iPRO. Offline filter: IntegrityNext, not yet classified.
Which IntegrityNext alternatives document a free trial?
Trial status not established: EUDR Passport, Exiger, Fair Supply, iPRO and osapiens HUB. Trial: IntegrityNext, trial status not established.