When I speak with food manufacturers about choosing a certification scheme, I hear the same question almost every time: “Which one is better—BRC or IFS?” The truth? Neither is better. They’re just different, and those differences matter depending on your customers, audit style, documentation culture, and geographic market.
I’ve supported sites through both BRCGS and IFS certifications—sometimes even running them side-by-side in the same facility. The companies that succeed are the ones who understand the nuances:
How the audit is scored
How evidence is evaluated
What documentation is expected
And where the scheme draws a hard line
If you’re trying to choose a standard, align dual compliance, or prepare your team for an upcoming audit, you’ll walk away from this guide with clarity—not confusion.
Standard Structure Comparison — BRC V9 vs IFS V8 Frameworks
Here’s what I’ve noticed: the first pain point companies hit is the structure and the way requirements are presented.
BRC V9 feels more prescriptive. It tells you exactly what needs to exist and sometimes even how it should look.
IFS V8 leans toward a risk-based mindset, giving you more flexibility and expecting the justification behind decisions.
If you’re managing documentation across both standards, the smartest approach is mapping shared requirements first. Roughly 70–80% overlap exists, especially in HACCP, GMPs, supplier approval, and food defense.
Pro Tip: Start with a single integrated food safety system and adjust for scheme-specific language—don’t build two systems.
Common Mistake: Treating them as identical because they’re both GFSI recognized. That assumption usually shows up in internal audits as inconsistencies or missing mandatory BRC documentation.
Audit Methodology & Scoring — Grading, Scoring, and Nonconformities
The audit experience is where companies really feel the difference.
BRC V9 grades audits as AA, A, B, C, D—plus whether the audit was announced or unannounced.
IFS V8 uses a scoring system with points and classifications (A, B, C, D, KO failures).
And then there’s the familiar IFS nuance: KO Requirements. One major failure-point in IFS is that a single KO nonconformity means no certificate, even if everything else is compliant.
I once worked with a bakery that passed BRC with a B grade, but failed IFS because the allergen separation plan wasn’t fully validated—classic KO topic.
Pro Tip: Train your internal auditors using the scoring system of the certification you’re aiming for—not generic audit checklists. It shifts mindset and sharpens the level of detail expected.
Pitfall to Avoid: Preparing as if both audit styles are identical. BRC feels more structured, while IFS feels more forensic and traceability-focused.
Both standards push food safety culture, but how they expect you to show it differs.
BRC V9 expects a documented culture plan, targets, improvement actions, and evidence of follow-up.
IFS V8 wants practical demonstration of culture—not just documentation. Behavior, training alignment, leadership engagement, and consistency hold a lot of weight.
What really matters is that culture isn’t treated as a “policy parking lot document.” I’ve seen companies write a culture plan, file it, and tick the box. That’s fine until auditors start speaking to operators.
Pro Tip: Make culture measurable—surveys, repeat training, behavioral checks, near-miss trends—all count.
Documentation, Records & Evidence Requirements — What’s Mandatory
Documentation expectations are one of the biggest differentiators.
IFS V8 allows for more flexibility, as long as the logic behind decisions is risk-justified.
If you’re running both, the simplest path is building documentation to BRC strength—it naturally satisfies IFS requirements. The reverse isn’t always true.
Example: IFS might accept “risk assessed handwashing timing,” while BRC expects the documented rule and the justification.
Common Mistake: Overwriting documentation “just to match the scheme language” instead of focusing on usability. Your system should support operations—not control them.
When it comes to food fraud and food defense, the expectations are similar—but the presentation style and evidence depth differ.
Pro Tip: Use a single risk model with dual-scheme mapping. It keeps the system simple and prevents duplicated work.
Real-World Insight: One of our clients simplified their raw material vulnerability model from five templates to one structured matrix mapped to both schemes—saving weeks of unnecessary admin.
Certification Outcome & Surveillance Cycles — What Happens After the Audit
After certification, the journey continues.
BRC V9 recertifies based on grade—6 or 12 months.
IFS V8 allows renewal depending on score, with strict follow-up timelines for corrective actions.
If you’re new to certification, the timelines can feel rigid until you streamline your system.
Common Mistake: Missing deadlines for evidence submission or corrective actions—this can put you back to square one.
FAQs — BRC V9 vs IFS V8
Q: Which standard is easier for first-time certification? Typically, BRC feels clearer because of its prescriptive nature. But it depends on your operational maturity.
Q: Can one food safety management system satisfy both? Absolutely—most requirements overlap. With the right structure, you can maintain a single system mapped to both.
Q: Which do European retailers prefer? Germany, France, and parts of the EU lean toward IFS. UK retailers tend to prefer BRC.
Conclusion — Choosing the Right Standard and Next Step
Both schemes strengthen food safety, improve retailer confidence, and sharpen operational discipline. The right choice depends on your customer expectations, region, audit style preference, and documentation culture.
After years supporting businesses through both, one thing holds true: the companies that invest in understanding how each standard works—not just what they require—always perform better in audits.
If you want help mapping requirements, preparing teams, or running a dual-standard implementation, now’s the perfect time to take the next step.
Melissa Lavaro is a seasoned ISO consultant and an enthusiastic advocate for quality management standards. With a rich experience in conducting audits and providing consultancy services, Melissa specializes in helping organizations implement and adapt to ISO standards. Her passion for quality management is evident in her hands-on approach and deep understanding of the regulatory frameworks. Melissa’s expertise and energetic commitment make her a sought-after consultant, dedicated to elevating organizational compliance and performance through practical, insightful guidance.
