Imagine a platform for compliance is $12,000 a year. What is the cost?
The replacement it makes will decide the answer.
If the automation process eliminates hundreds of hours of repetitive evidence collection in a complex technology-driven environment, $12,000 could be a good investment. If a small business of seven people could gather the same evidence manually in a few minutes each month, the calculation will be very different.
It’s a great way to start the search for Vanta. The question of which platform offers the greatest features is not the only thing to consider. Find out how many hours and time these features could save your business.
The Break-Even Point for Automation
Automation of compliance isn’t necessarily either good or negative. The value it brings changes with. Imagine a technology company that is growing, with multiple cloud environments, many applications, and regular changes in access. The task of collecting evidence over time could become extremely high. Integrations that monitor systems automatically and gather evidence can quickly justify their cost.
Imagine a company of 10 employees preparing for the first SOC 2. audit. It may have a relatively small infrastructure, and evidence collection could be managed without extensive automation.
That difference matters when evaluating Vanta pricing. A high-end platform can offer significant capabilities, however those capabilities deliver financial value only when the organization actually needs they.
Compare Architecture not just Brands
Searching for Vanta or Drata can quickly turn into a feature-by-feature exercise. Both are well-established solutions for compliance based on automation and integrations, so looking at their supported frameworks including integrations, service agreements, and individual quotes could be beneficial for companies who are looking for a similar approach.
There’s a second decision you have to take. Do you want a compliance platform that integrates? Some companies want continuous monitoring and automated collection of evidence. Some companies prefer to collect evidence on their own.
Vanta Competitors Don’t Follow the Same Model
A number of well-known Vanta competitors are in competition that has a similar focus on automation. There are platforms that have a more minimalist design which are focused more on system organization and connectivity.
CertAssist is a part of the latter group. CertAssist was developed by compliance consultants, internal auditors, and other professionals, organizes control frameworks into a single workspace. It allows for the editing of policies and guidance for evidence, and allows auditors to examine evidence with read-only access.
It does not connect to operational systems, nor does it create infrastructure agents. Customers can upload their own evidence.
It is important to consider the system’s access.
It is obvious that removing integrations will have a disadvantage. It is necessary to collect evidence manually.
The application for compliance doesn’t require any integration and can be utilized without connection to the operational environment.
The design and architecture of one is not superior to the other. The important question is which tradeoff makes sense for your organization.
CertAssist is a solution for teams with between five and 200 people. Its pricing is publicized rather than needing an initial sales call to determine the initial price. The advertised price of launch for CertAssist is $225 monthly in comparison to the usual $375.
Let Complexity Have Its Proper Place
The requirements for a start-up that a 10 person company has today might not be the same when you have 500 or 100 employees.
A simple platform could make sense if compliance remains straightforward. As the amount of systems, employees frameworks, and evidence requirements increase, the economy could eventually favour deeper automation. Let complexity be the primary factor when it comes to purchasing compliance technology.
Don’t buy fifty different integrations because they appear impressive on the comparison chart. They are worth paying for when doing the tasks they take over is more costly than performing them manually.
