Scanara vs Manual EU AI Act Compliance Work
Scanara compared with spreadsheets, consultants and periodic reviews for EU AI Act work. No unsourced hour or price figures.
TL;DR
Spreadsheets, consultants and periodic reviews fit work that needs human judgement. Scanara adds rule-based checks of code and documents that you can re-run, and keeps the results as evidence. It does not replace the customer’s decisions or legal advice.
Overview
Many organisations start with spreadsheets, outside consultants and periodic reviews. These methods suit assessments that need human judgement, such as the Article 6(3) exception or whether a practice matches Article 5. Scanara documents such assessments; the customer decides.
Scanara adds checks that can be re-run: Semgrep rules for code, OPA rules for documents in 8 EU languages, guided assessments with the Article 6 classification recorded, and drafts of compliance dossiers. Passing a scan does not mean an organisation is compliant.
Effort at a glance
With Scanara
Connect a repository and run a scan. Run it again after changes; with the merge gate enabled, pull requests are scanned. Scheduled scans are not yet available.
Manual Process
Hours and cost depend on the number of AI systems, their risk class and who does the work. This page gives no figure because none has a source.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Scanara | Manual Process |
|---|---|---|
| Code Scanning | Rule-based, 12 programming languages; confidence varies by language | Manual code review |
| Risk Classification | Guided workflow; the customer decides and Scanara records the determination | Spreadsheet-based |
| Document Validation | Rule-based check for required content, 8 EU languages | Manual document check |
| Scan Frequency | On demand; on pull requests with the merge gate | Whenever the review is repeated |
| Coverage | Files of the connected repository; custom or obfuscated code can be missed | The scope the reviewers choose |
| Consistency | Same rules and same code give the same result | Depends on the reviewer and the method |
| Scalability | Repository and scan limits depend on the plan | Effort grows with the number of systems and reviewers |
Pain Points of Manual Compliance
Findings age
A manual review describes the code on the day of the review. Later changes are not covered until someone repeats it.
Uneven coverage
A manual review covers what the reviewers have time to read. Different reviewers can reach different findings for the same codebase.
Engineering time
Manual work can pull engineers away from product work to answer questionnaires, prepare documents and join review meetings.
Effort per system
Each additional AI system needs its own review. The effort grows with the number of systems.
How Scanara helps
Re-runnable, not one-off
Run a scan whenever the code changes. With the merge gate enabled, each pull request is scanned and a check in GitHub shows the result.
Rule-based and repeatable
Rules cover 66 of the 113 articles in Scanara’s coverage map as of 24 August 2026. Guided assessments cover further duties, and the customer answers them. Code scanning can miss custom or obfuscated code.
Results in the pull request
With the merge gate enabled, a check on each pull request shows the scan mode, a score, a count of findings by severity and a link to the details.
Run a first scan on your repository
Connect a repository and run a first scan on the free plan. Your team still decides and completes the assessments.
Scanara prepares evidence from your repositories
Scanara reads your connected GitHub repositories and runs rule-based scans for standard AI and machine-learning patterns. It can miss non-standard code. Separately, it generates draft documentation from templates and your assessment answers as evidence for your compliance work. You make the classification decisions.