Let’s say the cost of a compliance program is $12,000 per year. Does that sound like a lot?
It’s all about what you are replacing.
If $12,000 can be used to eliminate hundreds of hours in the repetitive gathering of evidence across an extremely complex technology environment this could be money worth investing. It would be a different calculation if a startup of seven individuals could gather similar evidence in only one or two minutes per month.
That’s a useful way to approach the search for a Vanta alternative. Do not begin with asking which platform has the greatest features. Ask what those features will allow your company to save time and work.
Automated Manufacturing has a Break-Even Point
Automation of compliance isn’t intrinsically beneficial or harmful. The benefits of compliance automation will change as the company expands. Imagine a growing technology company that has multiple cloud environments and numerous applications. Manually collecting evidence could be a huge operational burden. Integrations that automatically monitor systems and take evidence are able to justify the expense.
Imagine a company of 10 people preparing to undergo its first SOC 2 audit. It could have a tiny infrastructure, and gathering of evidence can be managed with no significant automation.
Vanta pricing is based on this difference. A high-end platform can offer significant capabilities, however those capabilities can only provide financial value when an organization actually requires them.
Compare Architecture and not just Brands
A search for Vanta vs Drata will quickly turn into an exercise in feature-by-feature. The two platforms are built on automation and integration, so organizations looking for this approach can benefit from having a look at the frameworks available by their integrations, as well as the service as well as individual quotes and contracts.
There’s another decision to make before that. Are you interested in an integration-driven system for compliance? Certain businesses would prefer automated evidence collection and constant monitoring. Some businesses prefer to collect evidence by themselves, especially when the amount of work remains minimal.
Vanta Competitors do not follow the same pattern.
A number of well-known Vanta competitors have a place in the market, with the same focus on automation. It also offers lightweight platforms that are designed to focus on management rather than comprehensive system connectivity.
CertAssist is a member of the second category. CertAssist was developed by internal auditors and compliance experts. It organizes the framework controls into a central workspace. It also offers editable guidelines on policies as well as evidence. Auditors have the ability to examine evidence provided through a purely read interface.
It does not set up agents or connect to the infrastructure system. Customers choose and upload the evidence they want to submit.
Consideration should be given to the system access.
Removing integrations has an obvious drawback: you have to gather evidence manually.
It also eliminates integration setup and ensures that the compliance software does not require standing connections to the company’s operational environment.
The structures of one are not superior to each other. Which tradeoff is right for your company?
CertAssist is targeted towards teams that have between five and 200 employees and provides pricing information instead of having an actual sales call. The price for the initial launch is $225 per month, which is a significant reduction from the standard price of $375 a month.
Let Complexity Find Its Proper Place
The requirements for a start-up that has 10 employees aren’t necessarily the same as those of the company that has 100 or 500 workers.
A light platform may make sense, while compliance is simple. The economics of automation can rise as the number of employees, systems and frameworks expand. Allow complexity to take the lead when buying compliance technologies.
Paying for fifty integrations just because they look good in a comparison table is not a good idea. You should pay for them only when you realize that the cost of the job they replace manually is more expensive.