EU AI Act comparison
AZComply vs a Spreadsheet
A spreadsheet is how many teams start EU AI Act compliance. It can work for one simple system tracked by one person, but its limits appear when a platform has multiple AI components, owners, or a requirement for a durable audit trail.
Last verified: 27 August 2026
| Criterion | a Spreadsheet | AZComply |
|---|---|---|
| Classification logic | Manual judgment, redone by whoever owns the sheet | Deterministic rules: the same facts produce the same assessment |
| Multi-component systems | One label for the whole system or manually split tabs that drift | Each component is classified and tracked separately |
| Audit trail | Comments and version history vary by spreadsheet | Versioned, dated dossier with recorded human corrections |
| Local law coverage | Requires manual research across six jurisdictions | Built-in overlays for Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain |
| Continuity risk | Knowledge can leave with the spreadsheet owner | The assessment record lives in the system |
Choose a Spreadsheet
Choose a spreadsheet if you are mapping one simple system temporarily and accept manual research and continuity risk.
Choose AZComply
Choose AZComply when component-level classification, repeatability, and a review-ready record matter.
Frequently asked questions
Is a spreadsheet good enough for a small team with one AI system?
It may be enough for one simple system, but it does not inherently provide a versioned, defensible assessment or detect when a second component has a different risk profile.
What is the actual risk of staying on spreadsheets?
The main risk is structural: a spreadsheet often enforces one risk label per system, which becomes misleading when different AI components have different regulatory profiles.