Content date: 2 October 2026 · Editorial responsibility: Dimitris Mitsios · No individual check logged· AI use

Supply chain due diligence and forced labour risk · Guide revised September 2026

Exiger vs IntegrityNext: Scope, limits and demo questions

Side-by-side comparison

Exiger and IntegrityNext: pricing, evaluation starting point, scope, what to verify and offline scope. Select a row label to show its full text.
Attribute	Exiger	IntegrityNext
	No amount on record; request quote
	ESG & Sustainability
	Validate user roles, sites and scale against your proposed deployment.
	Confirm hosting, support languages and contractual coverage for your region.
	See the linked profile's capability evidence
	See the linked profile's unresolved questions
	Not yet classified

Where the two scopes differ

Both records cover supply chain risk with a human-rights angle, but they start from different places. Exiger is described as a supply chain and third-party risk platform in which forced labour mapping is one use. Its documented strengths are a knowledge graph that links suppliers and products to raw materials, identification and scoring of suppliers beyond the first tier, a due diligence workflow with sanctions, adverse media and modern slavery checks reviewed by analysts, and continuous monitoring of third parties. The IntegrityNext record starts with legal duties instead. It lists due diligence support for the German Supply Chain Act, the Norwegian Transparency Act, Swiss rules and the CSDDD, plus a separate EUDR solution, with supplier questionnaires and corrective actions at the centre.

The records therefore describe two different first questions. For Exiger it is how far the map reaches and how much of it is inferred: the record says the pages do not give the tier depth achieved for any product category, and the Xinjiang-focused forced labour solution is described as covering Chinese supply chains for goods entering the United States. For IntegrityNext it is how a screening result becomes a document a regulator or customer can read: the record documents screening against the UFLPA Entity List and sanctions data, names laws in the UK, Australia, Canada and California, and asks what statement output exists for each one. Neither record shows that a finding is linked to the sentence of a published modern slavery statement, and both ask for that to be demonstrated.

Commercial and technical points are close. Both are web platforms with no documented offline or field mode, neither publishes a price or a trial, and both list API-led connections to ERP and procurement systems without showing which are live for your systems. IntegrityNext has a fixed annual EUDR Starter package for small companies with up to 50 suppliers, although no amount is stated and the wider platform is quoted. Exiger's record cites FedRAMP Moderate authorisation, ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type 2 on its own pages; the IntegrityNext record cites a CSA STAR Level 2 statement and AWS hosting. Both ask for the actual reports.

Exiger: status on record

Trial: No free trial established.
Offline: Not yet classified.
Pricing: No amount on record; request quote.
Profile record checked 2 October 2026.

IntegrityNext: status on record

Trial: No free trial established.
Offline: Not yet classified.
Pricing: No amount on record; request quote.
Profile record checked 2 October 2026.

When each is the safer first demo

Start with Exiger when

Exiger is the safer first demo when the question is what sits behind your Tier 1 suppliers. Give the vendor a product bill of materials that spans at least three tiers, and ask it to mark which links on the map are confirmed and which are inferred. Open one flagged entity, read the evidence behind it and record a reviewer decision. Ask who performs that review, because the record says analysts are involved.

Start with IntegrityNext when

IntegrityNext is the safer first demo when you already know which laws you must answer to and the work is supplier questionnaires, risk analysis and measures. Pick one law, upload a sample supplier list with country and industry data and follow one high-risk supplier from risk analysis to a preventive measure and closure. Ask how a complaint is recorded and whether it feeds the next risk analysis.

A two-week evaluation plan

Ask Exiger

Name the modules and data sets behind each demonstrated step, and quote by supplier count, modules and reporting jurisdictions.
Ask which jurisdictions' reporting criteria are mapped and who keeps that mapping up to date, and which ERP and case-system integrations exist for your own systems.

Ask IntegrityNext

Name the due diligence laws and modules in the quote, and ask what the project plan and the vendor's stated six-to-eight-week average would mean for your scope.
Ask for the scope and date of the legal opinion the Norwegian page mentions, the list of questionnaire languages and the share of your suppliers already onboarded on the network.

Week 1, the same synthetic supplier list in both. Include a supplier whose answers contradict public signals, one with a name that matches a screening list by chance, and one with no data. Record what each product scores from spend and supplier names alone, what it asks the supplier to provide, and how a reviewer clears or escalates a match. Neither record establishes a trial, so agree a vendor-run environment, users and data first.

Week 2, from finding to document. Trace one finding to a remediation action and to the part of a statement or report it would support, then export the decision record that an auditor would be given. Ask each vendor to show a later change in a supplier's risk raising an alert, and what happens if the supplier stops answering. If EUDR applies, run one plot-level check and a due diligence statement in IntegrityNext and ask Exiger which part of that work it covers.

What the records do not establish

Exiger

A price or a trial.
The tier depth the mapping reaches for a given product, or the share of links that are inferred.
Coverage of jurisdictions or regimes beyond the stated focus on Xinjiang and United States import rules.
That a modern slavery statement can be prepared inside the product, or what an analyst's review adds to a flag.

IntegrityNext

A price, including any amount for the EUDR Starter package or what happens beyond 50 suppliers.
Modern slavery-specific assessments, or the statement output for the UK, Australian, Canadian and Californian laws.
That an average implementation time or a network size quoted by the vendor applies to your suppliers.
Which integrations are in place for your ERP or sourcing systems.

Neither product

Which product finds more risk in a real supply chain: no detection results were reviewed.
That a screening flag amounts to evidence of forced labour, or that either product on its own meets a legal duty.

Written from the profile records and the decision guide above, not from a hands-on test. Where a record is silent, the page says so instead of filling the gap.

Evaluate Exiger

Identify the exact product, application and licence.
Review the profile's demonstration questions.
Run the same task and record unresolved questions.

See Exiger profile

Evaluate IntegrityNext

Identify the exact product, application and licence.
Review the profile's demonstration questions.
Run the same task and record unresolved questions.

See IntegrityNext profile

Exiger vs IntegrityNext | FAQ

Which product is cheaper?

Comparable total cost has not been established. Request the same applications, users, sites, configuration, migration, integrations and support period from both vendors. Published entry pricing is subject to the plan conditions shown in each profile.

How should I compare offline capability?

Use the exact proposed mobile application and plan. Download required data, disconnect, create a record with a photo, reconnect and inspect synchronization. Record which preparation and tasks require connectivity.

How should I decide between these products?

Set acceptance criteria for your actual workflow. Complete the same demo, record observed results separately from vendor statements and resolve remaining questions in a scoped pilot. The linked profiles show the sources and review status for each product.

Vendor sources and next steps

Exiger11 sources, profile checked 2 October 2026

IntegrityNext11 sources, profile checked 2 October 2026

Record the same demo tasks in the scorecard →

Need a personalised shortlist?

Answer the matching questionnaire to explore up to 5 platforms based on your industry, size and processes, then verify the requirements with each vendor.

Get matched