BRC vs IFS: which certification should you choose for your food manufacturing site?

IFS or BRC? The question ifs brc - often searched as brc ifs - comes up as soon as a retailer makes listing conditional on a certification recognised by the GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative). The answer in principle fits in one sentence: choose the standard your customers accept, in your destination markets. IFS remains the default choice of retailers in continental Europe, led by Germany and France; BRCGS has historically been driven by UK retail and international brand owners. Where both are required, the standards can be combined: the challenge then becomes organising a single evidence collection process for two audit cycles.

This ifs vs brc comparison describes the origins and governance of the two standards, their differences in grading and cost, and then proposes a decision grid according to your profile. Tracklab supports Quality, Purchasing and Regulatory teams in this process: the platform centralises supplier and product data, automates document collection, tracks expiry dates and uses AI (artificial intelligence) to exploit document content. Tracklab is neither a certification body, nor an ERP, nor a regulatory monitoring tool.

In brief

• The choice is driven by the market, not by preference : IFS to supply continental Europe, BRCGS for UK retailers and international brand owners. The first criterion remains the customer's explicit requirement.

• Two private GFSI-recognised standards : BRCGS comes from UK retail (British Retail Consortium), IFS from German and French retail federations.

• Similar foundations, different grading : both require HACCP, traceability, supplier approval and document control. Grading and audit frequency, however, differ (AA to D grades for BRCGS, a percentage score for IFS).

• Holding both is possible : the same site can hold both certificates, provided evidence is pooled and two audit calendars are managed.

• The real burden is documentation : in both cases, the difficulty is not the standard, but keeping supplier evidence current (certificates, specifications, analyses, approvals).

BRCGS and IFS: origins and governance of the two standards

Understanding the ifs brc difference starts with the origin of each text. Both are private standards: they are not ISO standards, but specifications drawn up by retailers to audit their suppliers. Their original logic is therefore commercial before being regulatory.

BRCGS: a British standard driven by retail

BRCGS was created in the United Kingdom in 1998, on the initiative of the British Retail Consortium (BRC), the association of British retailers. Its objective: to provide a common set of requirements for assessing food suppliers, in particular manufacturers of private-label products. The programme has since expanded to several schemes (packaging, logistics, trading, consumer products) and the standard is now published under the BRCGS brand, owned by LGC Assure (LGC group).

IFS: a German and French initiative for private-label products

IFS (International Featured Standards) was created in 2003 by the German retail federation, the Handelsverband Deutschland (HDE), joined by the Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution (FCD) in France. The standard addresses the same need: auditing suppliers consistently, particularly private-label suppliers, in continental Europe. It is administered by IFS Management GmbH, jointly owned by the HDE and the FCD, and available in several programmes (IFS Food, IFS Logistics, IFS Broker, IFS PACsecure, among others).

What GFSI recognition guarantees, and what it does not

The GFSI does not certify companies: it benchmarks certification programmes against its requirements and publishes the list of recognised programmes. BRCGS Food Safety (Issue 9) and IFS Food (version 8) are both among the programmes recognised for their declared scopes. This recognition means that both texts are considered equivalent in rigour, not that a customer will accept either one interchangeably. A retailer may accept only one programme, or require a specific version: this is checked in the specifications, not in the GFSI list. To extend the comparison to other standards, see which GFSI certification to choose.

BRC vs IFS comparison table

The table below summarises the points of divergence to check before deciding. It covers the two most common standards in the food industry: BRCGS Food Safety and IFS Food.

Costs depend mainly on the size and complexity of the site (headcount, number of lines, product ranges, working languages) and on the body's rates. Published estimates put certification in a range of a few thousand euros per year, excluding internal preparation. To be confirmed by a quotation from your certification body.

Two nuances to bear in mind. First, the grading mechanism changes how the result is read: BRCGS displays a letter (which determines the length of the next cycle), IFS displays a percentage (which positions performance and the level achieved). Second, the frequency is not symmetrical : with BRCGS, a grade C reduces validity to six months, whereas IFS maintains an annual cycle as long as the requirements are met. These rules change with each version: always check the applicable edition with your certification body. Details of BRCGS grades are presented in our guide to theBRC audit.

BRC or IFS: selection criteria according to your profile

The right question is not "which is best", but "which do my customers require". Four criteria are enough to make the decision objective.

1. Your destination market

The destination market is the most decisive factor. If your main outlet is UK retail, BRCGS is the expected standard. If you supply German or French retail, IFS is most often required. For exports to several regions, choose the standard for the most demanding market, then extend if necessary.

2. The retailers and brand owners who list you

Requirements vary from one group to another: some buying groups accept only one programme, others accept any GFSI-recognised programme. The reliable approach is to reread specifications and contracts, then ask your quality contacts on the customer side. It is this verification, not a theoretical comparison, that decides.

3. Your type of activity (the applicable scheme)

BRCGS and IFS do not only cover manufacturing. The scheme depends on your actual activity:

For trading activities, the comparison of the two equivalent schemes is detailed in IFS and BRC for brokers.

4. Site size and complexity

For comparable requirements, the audit duration - and therefore the cost - increases with headcount, number of lines, product range and working languages. A single-product site and a multi-line site have neither the same audit duration nor the same preparation workload. This criterion weighs on the budget, rarely on the choice of standard.

Can you hold both a BRC certification and an IFS certification?

Yes, and it is common in multi-site groups or companies exporting to several markets. Combining a brc ifs certification or, the other way round, an ifs brc certification, is not simply a matter of adding two processes together: holding brc and ifs involves two audits, sometimes two bodies, and two results databases. The useful question is therefore not "do we need both", but "how do we avoid collecting the same evidence twice".

Three principles make holding both sustainable:

1. A common documentation foundation : quality policy, HACCP, supplier approval, traceability and non-conformity management are required by both texts. Write and version these documents once, then link them to the clauses of both standards.

2. A correspondence map : for each BRCGS chapter, identify the equivalent IFS requirement (and vice versa). You avoid duplication and immediately spot what is specific to each standard.

3. A single calendar : two audit cycles plus a periodic unannounced audit quickly overlap. Centralising deadlines makes it possible to anticipate peaks rather than suffer them.

Holding both also requires rigour on specific requirements : a document compliant with one standard is not necessarily compliant with the other. The correspondence matrix must remain a living document and be updated with each new version of the text.

What the choice changes in practice: document management and supplier monitoring

Beyond the standard, the difference lies in the ability to prove, quickly and without fail, that each requirement is applied. Three workstreams are affected, whichever standard is chosen.

Centralise supplier and product data

The auditor traces back from a finished product to a supplier, then to its certificates and specifications. If this data is scattered across files, mailboxes and shared folders, reconstructing the evidence takes considerable time. A single database, in which each product reference is linked to its suppliers, its specification and its supporting documents, transforms audit preparation.

Manage document validity over time

An expired supplier certificate, an unversioned specification or an out-of-date analysis is enough to generate a non-conformity. Manual date tracking does not hold up across several hundred suppliers. This is where document management software for IFS and BRC delivers a direct gain: automated collection, alerts before expiry, completeness and validity checks.

Use AI to exploit document content

Supplier documents contain critical data - certificate number, expiry date, scope covered, analysis results, allergens, origin. Extracting it automatically with AI avoids re-keying and reduces errors. This information then feeds supplier monitoring and compliance dashboards, without depending on a single contact person.

This is Tracklab's role: centralising supplier and product data, automating document collection, tracking expiry dates and using AI to exploit documents. The platform prepares and secures the file without replacing the audit: the certification decision remains the sole responsibility of an accredited body. For details of the document mechanics, see our IFS certification and BRC certification offerings, as well as the compliance and certifications module.

Decide: three questions before choosing your standard

1. Which standards do my customers require, sector by sector? This is the deciding question. Without a written answer, the comparison remains theoretical.

2. Which markets am I targeting over the next two to three years? A UK or international market points towards BRCGS; continental Europe towards IFS. If both combine, plan for holding both.

3. Am I able to sustain two audit cycles? Holding both is realistic if the documentation foundation is pooled and deadlines are centralised. Otherwise, start with one standard, then extend.

The decision is based on customer and operational criteria, never on a preference in principle. Once the standard has been chosen, the effort focuses on data: approved suppliers, valid evidence, tracked deadlines.

Useful next step: map your main outlet and formalise your customers' requirements. In parallel, structure your supplier and product data so that the file remains demonstrable at all times - this is where most of the preparation time is saved. To compare the two support options, see BRC certification and IFS certification.

Useful sources

• BRCGS - Official website and Global Standard Food Safety

• IFS Certification - About IFS and IFS Food

• MyGFSI - Recognised certification programmes and recognition of BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9

• Ecocert - IFS, BRCGS, GLOBALG.A.P. standards: how to choose

• Bureau Veritas - IFS and BRCGS certification

• AFNOR Certification - BRCGS Food certification

• Kitcertif - Price of an IFS, BRCGS or FSSC 22000 certification

• EUR-Lex - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002