Skip to main content
    QHSEtech
    Updated 1 October 2026
    Research-based buyer guide

    Regulatory Change: Cority vs Enhesa vs Intelex

    An alert says only that a source moved. What follows is the real work: who reads it, which sites it touches, what has to change by which date, and where the proof is kept. This guide compares Cority, Enhesa and Intelex on how each handles that sequence from first notice to closed record.

    Jump to the 7 products

    Editorial responsibility: Dimitris Mitsios (Founder of The QHSE Standard; product marketing at Tekmon) · Tekmon pays for sponsored placements on this site (disclosure) · How pages are made · LinkedIn

    On this page (17 sections)

    Cority vs Enhesa vs Intelex: pricing, offline scope and fit

    Status labels from each product's sourced record; open the profile for the evidence, conditions and dates. Research dates belong to each product; this table does not establish a fresh source check or a performance ranking.

    Categories describe software types; processes describe work to manage. Category membership does not confirm a specific feature or included module. Check the quoted plan and workflow with each vendor.

    Scroll horizontally on a small screen.

    Offline classification, pricing headline and trial status; full evidence on each profile
    ProductWorks offline?PricingFree trial
    Cority
    +5 additional categories

    Profile sources: 3 October 2026. Targeted recheck: 19 September 2026.

    		Documented offline workflow

    No verified starting price. Contact vendor.

    Pricing context    		Not established
    Enhesa

    Profile sources: 10 October 2026. Targeted recheck: 19 September 2026.

    		Partial offline workflow

    No verified starting price. Contact vendor.

    Pricing context    		Not established
    Intelex
    +2 additional categories

    Profile sources: 3 October 2026. Targeted recheck: 19 September 2026.

    		Documented offline workflow

    US$44/user/month for Safety Essentials; minimum 25 users, billed annually

    Pricing context    		Trial or demo on request

    Profile links contain the primary sources and unresolved limitations. Vendor documentation is not hands-on testing. AI-assisted explanations may be incomplete and do not replace primary documentation or a demo.

    Read the comparison at the right level

    The table summarises the broader product evidence. It does not verify every module discussed below, disconnected approvals or inclusion in the quoted plan. Unknown pricing means request a scoped vendor quote; an unverified capability is an open question, not proof that the feature is absent.

    What to demonstrate before buying

    StageProposed testEvidence to retain
    DetectA source changesPublication date, effective date and source retained
    TriageRelevance is proposedUncertain and rejected suggestions remain reviewable
    AssessSpecialist decides applicabilitySite, rationale and affected obligations recorded
    PlanSet implementation workResponsible person, dependencies and due date
    VerifyReview completionEvidence checked and unresolved work remains visible
    RevisitInterpretation or operations changeEarlier decision preserved with the new assessment

    Intake: keep proposals, adopted law and guidance apart

    Intake draws on two kinds of feed. Early signals say what may happen; adopted instruments say what will. HSE's forthcoming-regulations page points to open consultations and offers a free update subscription. In the United States, the Unified Agenda reports what federal agencies plan to issue in the near and long term, and Executive orders have required agencies to publish it since 1978. A planned action is a forecast, so software should hold it as a watch item with no site duty attached until an instrument is adopted.

    Give commencement its own field. HSE says it favours 6 April and 1 October as common commencement dates so that employers can plan, which means the date that drives your deadline is usually not the publication date. Record publication, commencement and your own earlier target date as three separate values.

    Classify the source type at intake as well. HSE states that following its guidance is not compulsory unless stated, whereas a defendant who did not follow an Approved Code of Practice must show compliance some other way. A guidance revision and a revised code can therefore deserve different triage outcomes.

    One change, six records the software has to keep

    StepQuestion to settleRecord to keep
    IntakeIs this a proposal, an adopted instrument or guidance?Source link, source type, publication date, commencement date and the time your system received it
    Site triageDoes it touch an activity at each site?One decision per site, the facts relied on, reviewer and any unanswered screening question
    Impact assessmentWhich procedures, permits, training or equipment change?Linked obligations, affected documents and the assumptions behind the assessment
    Ownership and datesWho acts, and by when?Named owner, an internal date set ahead of commencement and an escalation contact
    Implementation evidenceWhat shows the change is in place?Revised procedure version, training record or inspection result linked to this change
    RetirementWhich earlier requirement is now replaced?Superseded entry, link to its replacement, retirement date and reason

    Retire a requirement only after relinking it

    A revoked instrument does not always mean a duty has gone. HSE's repeals and revocations page says the 2013 package removed measures that newer regulations had overtaken, that were redundant or that did not deliver their intended benefit. It also notes that the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations were revoked while amended Personal Protective Equipment Regulations continued to cover hard hats. A register should therefore link each affected site obligation to its replacement before the old entry retires, and keep the history.

    Check which version of the text you rely on. HSE's tracing guidance says legislation.gov.uk is still adding older statutory instruments that remain in force, so confirm that the text you rely on is the version in force. Its legislation index also lists post-implementation reviews, a further trigger worth watching. For linked processes see the legal register guide and management of change.

    Worked example (fictional): one amendment, two sites, one retired entry

    Everything below is invented to test software. An amendment to an invented lifting-equipment regulation is published in April 2027 and commences on 1 October 2027, a date pattern HSE describes for UK changes. Site A runs two overhead cranes; Site B has none. For Site A the reviewer records that the change applies from commencement, sets a training task for 1 September 2027 and assigns revised inspection procedure revision 3. For Site B the reviewer records that no cranes exist and sets a trigger to reassess if any are installed.

    The same amendment revokes an older instrument whose duties pass to the amended one. Before commencement, the Site A obligation is relinked to the amended text. On 1 October the older entry retires with its reason, and both versions stay retrievable. A later inspection that finds one training record missing is recorded against the new entry even though the procedure task is already closed.

    Cority: review routing and operational follow-up

    Cority describes applicability monitoring and compliance action routing. Where multiple sites need controlled follow-up, test who resolves conflicting local applicability decisions.

    Enhesa: source traceability before automated decisions

    Enhesa documents the relationship between requirements and source regulations. Ask for the research coverage, its exclusions and the review responsibilities to be stated in the contract.

    Intelex: verify the content gateway and task handoff

    Intelex describes gateways for Enhesa and RegScan content. Ask for the handoff into your purchased workflow to be demonstrated and priced, and confirm whether updates create tasks, suggestions or records awaiting approval.

    What the profile evidence suggests asking about change handling

    The Enhesa profile separates its forecasting of proposals, which carries impact analysis, from requirements already in effect, and describes revalidating a requirement when its source changes and converting obligations into assignable work. Owners, escalation and closure evidence still need confirming in the contracted configuration. The Intelex profile notes that its document control application keeps revision history, obsolete versions and employee acknowledgements, which could support procedure updates if licensed. For Cority, ask which content source fills the obligations its compliance application stores.

    A practical demo scenario

    Use an update with a future effective date and different applicability at two sites. Reject the suggested relevance at one site and keep the reason. At the other site, assign a procedure update and a training task. Then change the interpretation and confirm that earlier decisions remain available rather than being overwritten.

    Three more questions about change handling

    Can a proposal be held apart from an adopted requirement, and promoted only after a recorded decision?
    When a source is revoked or replaced, can each affected site obligation be relinked before the old entry retires, with its history intact?
    Are publication, commencement and internal due dates separate fields, and do reminders follow the commencement date?

    Pricing and value: compare the complete scope

    Request the monitored jurisdictions, topics, source languages and service update terms in writing. Quote the content service and workflow software separately, including integration and review staffing. A high number of alerts says nothing about the quality of coverage or about lower legal risk.

    Questions to include in your RFP

    Can a reviewer open the source behind a summary?
    Are publication, entry-into-force and internal target dates separate?
    Can a machine-generated relevance suggestion turn into a binding obligation before a person has approved it?
    What happens to an update that is later withdrawn, corrected or superseded?

    Researched products that describe a regulatory change workflow

    The three products compared at the top were named by this guide. This section is built differently: one published rule is applied to every researched profile, and a product is listed when its record describes a regulatory change, an update feed or monitoring of changes. Update feeds, content services and workflow tools are different purchases, so read the capability line on each card before assuming it covers interpretation, applicability or task follow-up.

    Cority, Enhesa and Intelex do not appear below. The rule needs a catalogue tag and a sourced change capability in the record, and a missing one is a gap in our research, not a finding about the product. Ask the vendor to demonstrate the change workflow described above.

    Ordered by how closely our sources document this process, not by quality. Sponsored placements are labelled. How lists are ordered

    Same rule for every product: tagged “Compliance Management”, “Compliance”, “Compliance Tracking”, “Risk & Compliance”, “EHS Management”, “ISO Management”, “Environmental Management”, “Regulatory Change Management”, “Regulatory Compliance”, “Regulatory Intelligence”, “Legal Register” or “Risk Management”, with a sourced regulatory change, update or monitoring capability in its record, or one the vendor stated to us, labelled as vendor-stated. 7 qualify.

    Related Guides

    Legal Register SoftwareCompliance Management SoftwareManagement of Change SoftwareBest Audit Management SoftwareISO 45001 SoftwareCSRD Compliance Software

    Sources and evaluation method

    9 sources, checked 19 Sep – 1 Oct 2026

    Module sources checked 19 September 2026. HSE and reginfo.gov pages read 1 October 2026; they describe UK and US practice as context and do not establish which instruments apply to your sites. Product-level pricing and offline evidence retain their own review dates. This guide uses vendor documentation, not hands-on testing or customer testimony. Proposed demo tests are editorial suggestions, not verified product performance.

    Our framework considers functional depth (25%), usability and adoption (20%), implementation and TCO (15%), integrations and API (15%), security and trust (15%), and customer voice (10%). We have not assigned numerical scores here. AI-assisted explanations may be incomplete and do not replace primary documentation or a demo. Evaluation methodology.

    Software categories to explore

    Use this Process to define the work, then explore these software types. Confirm the exact workflow and module with each vendor.

    See all software categories

    More related guides

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Can AI replace regulatory specialists?
    No. Treat generated output as a prompt for a specialist to inspect, never as the final applicability decision. The reviewer should open the source, confirm the version and the activities concerned, and own any question of interpretation or implementation.
    How does regulatory change management differ from a legal register?
    A legal register is the stored record of requirements and the decisions made about them. Change management is the recurring routine of noticing an update, deciding what it means for each site and following the work through. Even a continuously updated register needs named people responsible for that routine.
    Which regulatory change platform is best for several sites?
    Compare Cority, Enhesa and Intelex against the jurisdictions, sources and operational handoffs you need. Test a change with different local applicability and an unresolved reviewer decision. This review does not establish a universal ranking or guaranteed coverage.
    Is a proposed rule the same as a requirement that applies to us?
    No. A consultation or agency agenda entry signals a possible change; it is not an adopted instrument and has no commencement date you can rely on. Record it as a watch item, name who decides whether to prepare, and move it into the register only once the instrument is adopted.
    What should happen to a register entry when its source is revoked?
    Do not simply delete it. Check whether the duty now sits in a replacement instrument, relink each site obligation, then retire the old entry with a date and reason. Keep the earlier version retrievable so past evaluations still make sense.