Opstra ApS

Denmark · owned by Independent (Denmark) · opstra.dk · 3 vendors

Opstra ApS is a Danish company specializing in IT consulting and software development, with a focus on creating tailored digital solutions for businesses.

Resilience scores

Disruption prediction

Opstra ApS has an estimated 17% probability of disruption in the next 6 months.

1 of Opstra ApS's 3 vendors monitored for disruptions.

Technology vendors

Insights

Last updated 2026-09-12 · revision 3

3 direct vendors, 94 subvendors

Direct vendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Subvendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Migration Readiness: 4/10

Assessed by AI based on technology stack characteristics (cloud-native vs legacy, containerization, microservices), regulatory environment, data residency requirements, financial stability, and vendor lock-in risks. The score ranges from 0-10, where higher scores indicate better readiness for technology migration.

Opstra ApS exhibits low to medium migration readiness, primarily due to significant gaps in critical data and known regulatory complexities. The most substantial unknown is the company's internal tech stack and key technologies; without this information, it's impossible to assess the current state of their systems (e.g., cloud-native vs. legacy, containerization, microservices adoption), which is a fundamental determinant of migration effort and cost. Regulatory compliance, specifically GDPR, is a significant factor. As a Danish company, Opstra is subject to GDPR, and its inferred internal data residency requirements within the EU would necessitate careful planning and selection of compliant cloud providers or migration strategies to avoid legal and operational issues. This adds complexity and potential cost to any migration effort. Regarding vendor relationships, while the company lists "Total Services: 2", the "Total Vendors: 0" is contradictory. Assuming there are vendors for these services, the small number of services could imply a concentrated vendor landscape, and the "Vendor Lock-in Risk" is explicitly stated as "Unknown." This lack of clarity on vendor lock-in is a critical challenge, as high lock-in can significantly impede migration flexibility and increase costs. Furthermore, there is no data on the company's financial stability or growth history, which are crucial for assessing its ability to fund a potentially complex and costly migration. The absence of industry certifications also suggests a potential lack of formalized processes that could streamline migration. Overall, while the small number of services might suggest fewer systems to migrate, the lack of visibility into the tech stack, the known regulatory constraints, and the unknown vendor lock-in risk collectively point to a challenging migration scenario.

Compliance

11 in-scope frameworks identified; showing 3.

ISAE 3000 (source) — Assessment Required

This is an assurance standard used by auditors to provide a report on a wide range of non-financial information. It would apply if a customer or regulator required a specific attestation, for instance on data privacy controls.

Less commonly requested than ISO 27001 or SOC 2 for general technology companies, but may be required for specific assurance engagements (e.g., on GDPR compliance). The risk of not having one is generally low unless contractually required.

ISO 27001 (source) — Assessment Required

While a voluntary standard, ISO 27001 is a common expectation for technology companies that handle client data, making it a de facto requirement for market access and trust.

Certification is often a client requirement in the technology sector for assurance on information security management. Lacking it could be a commercial disadvantage. The risk is primarily commercial rather than legal.

GPSR — Assessment Required

The General Product Safety Regulation applies to producers and distributors placing consumer products on the EU market. This would only be relevant if Opstra ApS manufactures or sells hardware.

Risk is likely low, as this applies to physical consumer products. A pure software company would have minimal exposure. If the company sells hardware, the risk of non-compliance (e.g., unsafe electronics) would be higher.

Evidence: https://jorpex.com/guides/find-tenders-denmark/, https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/product-liability-safety-2026/denmark/trends-and-developments, https://kromannreumert.com/viden/product-safety-regulation-0, https://www.sweco.dk/en/services/water-energy-and-industry/environment/, https://nordicgreenengineering.dk/en/environment-permits/, https://arteliagroup.dk/en/services/environment/

Financials

Signed-in users can see whether their own company is exposed to this vendor's disruption, plus the full sub-vendor list and country breakdowns, every in-scope compliance framework plus gaps and next steps, and alerts when any of it changes.

View the full interactive report