6 Free EU AI Act Compliance Checkers Compared (2026)
Last updated: 31 March 2026
Not all "EU AI Act compliance checkers" do the same thing. Some classify risk. Some map obligations. Most tools are risk classifiers. AI Act Gap is the only free tool that maps your current state against every applicable EU AI Act article and outputs a downloadable, article-by-article technical gap report with recommended actions — not just a risk tier. Knowing the difference saves time — and avoids a false sense of readiness.
Why this comparison exists
The EU AI Act compliance tooling landscape has expanded quickly, and the category labels are confusing. "Compliance checker", "readiness tool", "gap analysis", and "risk classifier" are used interchangeably — but they describe fundamentally different outputs. A risk classifier tells you whether you're in scope. A gap analysis tells you what you still need to build.
This guide compares six tools that are freely accessible as of March 2026. We've looked at what each one actually produces, not just what its marketing describes. The goal is to help you choose the right tool for where you are in your compliance process — not to declare a winner.
Comparison table
| Tool | What it does | Output | No login | Art. 25 | GPAI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI Act Gap (aiactgap.com) | Technical gap analysis per compliance pillar | Gap report + recommended actions | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Future of Life Institute Compliance Checker | Role + risk classifier with obligation mapping | Article-specific obligation list | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| trail-ml.com | Role + scope classifier | Article references | ✗ | ✓ | ⚠️ | ✓ |
| Whisperly | Applicability + risk tier | Compliance roadmap | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| EC official checker | Article navigator | Points to articles | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| GDPRLocal | Risk scoring | Compliance score | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓* |
Based on publicly available features as of March 2026. Features may have changed. * GPAI-specific assessment depth unverified.
What risk classification tools do well
Risk classification tools — the EC official checker and trail-ml.com in particular — are fast and useful for initial scoping. If you genuinely don't know whether your AI system is in scope of the EU AI Act at all, these tools are a good starting point. They walk you through the relevant questions (Annex III domains, intended use, market context) and point you to the applicable articles.
The EC's official tool is the most authoritative reference for applicability questions — it's built on the regulation text and doesn't try to go beyond it. trail-ml.com adds some useful structure around Annex III domains and GPAI scope.
For a legal team doing initial due diligence on a new AI system, these tools are appropriate and useful.
What they miss
Risk classification tools stop at "you're high-risk, see Article 16." They don't tell you what artifacts to build, which pillars are incomplete, or what to prioritise given your current documentation state. For a technical team that already knows they're in-scope and needs to plan actual work, this output is not actionable.
Specifically, these tools don't address:
- Gap identification — which of the 12 Annex IV Technical File requirements you currently have, partially have, or are missing entirely.
- Priority ordering — given a compliance deadline, which gaps are critical (non-negotiable for conformity assessment) versus important versus nice-to-have.
- Article 25 reclassification — whether a Deployer's use of a third-party system has been modified or rebranded in ways that make them legally a Provider.
- Recommended actions — what to build, document, or change for each identified gap.
- GPAI obligations — most classifiers cover high-risk system scope but do not address the separate GPAI pathway under Articles 53–55, which has its own distinct obligation set and timeline.
When to use each tool
Still scoping — don't know if you're in scope yet
Use the EC official checker or trail-ml.com first. Fast, no login required, useful for the applicability question. Don't expect anything beyond that.
Know you're high-risk or GPAI — need to know what to build
Use AI Act Gap. The assessment maps your current state against each compliance pillar, identifies specific gaps, and produces a prioritised report with recommended actions you can hand to your engineering team. PDF download included for sharing with legal counsel or leadership.
Not sure if you're a Provider or a Deployer
AI Act Gap checks this in step one, including the Article 25 reclassification questions. Other tools in this comparison either assume a single role or don't test for reclassification scenarios.
GPAI model provider
If your system is a GPAI model rather than a high-risk system, your obligations are under Articles 53–55 — not the Annex IV Technical File requirements. AI Act Gap includes a dedicated GPAI path. The EC checker and trail-ml provide partial coverage; Whisperly and GDPRLocal do not address GPAI.
Not sure whether the AI Act even applies to you
Start with the Future of Life Institute checker — it determines applicability before classifying risk, walking you through role, system type, and deployment context before any obligation mapping begins.
Need to check multiple regulations, not just the AI Act
GDPRLocal and Whisperly both cover EU AI Act alongside GDPR, NIS2, and ISO 27001. Useful if your compliance scope extends beyond a single regulation.
Team needs to track compliance over time
Consider graduating to a paid platform (trail-ml Pro or Whisperly) or AI Act Gap's planned Pro tier for ongoing monitoring. Free tools in this comparison are point-in-time assessments, not continuous compliance tracking.
A note on fairness
This page is written by the team behind AI Act Gap. We have tried to represent each tool accurately based on their publicly available features as of March 2026. If something here is wrong or outdated — either about AI Act Gap or about another tool — we want to know. Email us at contact@aiactgap.com and we'll update the comparison.
We don't think there's one right tool for every organisation at every stage. The comparison above is meant to help you decide which tool fits where you are — not to disparage tools that are genuinely useful in different contexts.