Let’s suppose that a compliance system is $12,000 per year. Does that sound expensive?
The answer will depend on the product it is replacing.
If automation eliminates hundreds of hours tedious evidence collection in a tangled technology-driven environment, $12,000 could be a good investment. If a startup with seven employees could collect the same information manually, in a couple of hours each month, the figure looks considerably different.
This is a good way to approach the search for the Vanta alternative. Do not start by asking which platform has the greatest features. Consider what these features can allow your company to save time and work.
Automation has an economic break-even At this
It’s not intrinsically good or evil. The value of compliance automation alters as the business grows. Imagine a technology company that is growing, with numerous cloud environments, many applications and frequent changes to access. Continuously gathering evidence manually could cause a significant operational burden. Integrations that monitor systems automatically and collect evidence could easily justify the expense.
Now consider a 10-person startup making preparations for its first SOC 2. Think about a startup that has 10 employees working on its first SOC 2.
Vanta pricing is based upon this difference. A sophisticated platform can provide significant capabilities, however those capabilities deliver financial value only when the company actually needs they.
Compare Architecture, Not Just Brands
A search for Vanta vs Drata can quickly become a feature-by -feature test. Both platforms are built upon automation and are integrated companies that are looking to adopt this type of approach will benefit from comparing the frameworks supported along with their integrations and services and individual quotations and contracts.
But there’s still another decision you have to make. Does your company want an integration-driven compliance system at all? Certain businesses require automated evidence collection and constant monitoring. Some prefer to provide evidence themselves, especially when the work load is not too heavy.
Vanta Competitors don’t all follow the exact same guidelines.
Many well-known Vanta competitors compete within a similar automation-focused category. It also offers lighter platforms designed around organizing rather than extensive system connectivity.
CertAssist belongs to the latter category. CertAssist was created by compliance consultants, internal auditors, as well as other experts, organizes the controls frameworks into a single workspace. It offers editable policies and guidelines for evidence, and allows auditors to review evidence via read-only access.
It doesn’t set up agents or connect to the infrastructure system. Customers can upload their own evidence if they choose.
Access to the Factor System into the Decision
Eliminating integrations has a distinct disadvantage: one must collect evidence manually.
It also removes the need for integration setup and also means that the application does not require connections to the organization’s operational environment.
The architectures are not universally superior. It is important to ask what tradeoffs are appropriate to your business.
CertAssist is geared towards teams comprising between five and 200 individuals. It also publishes its pricing instead of requiring a sales conversation to obtain the starting figure. The stated launch price for CertAssist is $225 monthly, as opposed to an average of $375.
Let Complexity take its rightful Place
The needs of a 10-person company today may not be its needs at 100 or 500 employees.
A simple platform could be beneficial while compliance stays easy. When systems, employees frameworks, and evidence requirements multiply, the economics can ultimately favor more automation. Let complexity be the primary factor when you purchase compliance technology.
Don’t spend money on fifty integrations simply because they look attractive on a comparison chart. They’re worth the cost as the work they are replacing is more costly than performing them manually.