Suppose a compliance platform is priced at $12,000 per year. Does that sound expensive?
It’s all about what you’re replacing.
If technology can eliminate hundreds of hours repetitive evidence collection in a tangled technology environment, $12,000 could be money well spent. If a small business of seven people could gather the same data manually in a few minutes each month, the calculation looks considerably different.
This is an excellent way to look for Vanta alternatives. Don’t begin by asking which one has the greatest features. Find out what features save your company in actual time and money.
Automated Manufacturing Comes with an End-of-Even
Automation of compliance isn’t always beneficial or harmful. The importance of automation for compliance will change as the company expands. Imagine a technology company that is growing with hundreds of employees, several cloud environments, multiple applications, and frequent access modifications. It is possible to manually collect evidence, which could be a major operational burden. Integrations that automately monitor systems and gather evidence could quickly justify their cost.
Consider a startup with 10 employees that is preparing for its initial SOC 2. It may have a relatively small infrastructure, and the evidence collection could be handled with minimal automation.
This is a crucial distinction when looking at Vanta’s pricing. The capabilities of a high-end platform are amazing, however they can only be of value in the event that an organization requires them.
Compare Architecture and Not Just Brands
A search for Vanta vs Drata can quickly become a feature-by-feature exercise. Both are well-established solutions for compliance based on automation and integrations. As such, looking at their supported frameworks including integrations, service agreements, and individual quotes could prove useful to companies seeking that approach.
There’s yet another one that you must make. Is your company interested in an integration-driven platform to help with compliance? Some businesses favor continuous monitoring, automated evidence collection, and automated evidence gathering. Some businesses prefer to collect evidence by themselves.
Vanta Competitors don’t all follow the exact same guidelines.
A lot of Vanta competitors are in the same class that emphasizes automation. It also offers lighter platforms designed around organization rather than extensive system connectivity.
CertAssist is a part of the second group. Created by compliance experts and internal auditors, CertAssist organizes framework controls in a single workstation, allows for the editing of policies and evidence guidance, and allows auditors to examine evidence submitted via access to only read-only.
It deliberately does not connect to operating systems, nor create infrastructure agents. Customers can upload their own documentation.
It is important to consider the access to the system.
The removal of integrations comes with a clear disadvantage: someone must collect evidence manually.
This eliminates the need for integration, and the use of compliance does not require an integration with the operational environment.
Both architectures are equally excellent. Which tradeoff is right for your company?
CertAssist is targeted at companies with five to 200 employees and gives pricing information, instead of having an actual sales call. The price for its launch is $225 per month, compared with a regular price of $375 per month.
Let Complexity Get Its Due
The requirements for a start-up that a 10 person company has today may not be the same at 100 or even 500 employees.
While compliance is simple, a lightweight platform may make sense. As the number of employees, systems as well as frameworks and evidence requirements grow, the economics will ultimately favor more automation. Let complexity play a role when you purchase compliance technology.
Don’t buy fifty different integrations simply because they seem impressive in the comparison chart. They’re well worth the money in situations where the task they take over is more costly than doing them manually.