Imagine a compliance system is priced at $12,000 per year. How much is that?
The answer is dependent on what it is replacing.
If $12,000 can be used to eliminate hundreds of hours in repetitive evidence gathering across the complex technological world It could be wisely invested. It would be a different calculation for a start-up of seven people could collect the same evidence in just several minutes each month.
That’s a useful way to approach the search for a Vanta alternative. Identifying the platform with the best features is not the first step. Ask your company how these features can help you save time and money.
Automation Can be a Break-Even Economic Point
It’s not intrinsically good or evil. Scale changes its value. Imagine a technology company that is growing that has hundreds of employees many cloud environments, numerous applications, and constant access modifications. The task of collecting evidence continuously could become very excessive. Integrations that can automatically monitor systems and gather evidence could quickly justify their cost.
Now think about a 10-person company that is preparing for its initial SOC 2. It may have a relatively smaller infrastructure, and the documentation of the evidence could be managed without extensive automation.
Vanta pricing is based on this difference. A high-end platform can offer large capabilities, but those capabilities deliver financial value only when an organization actually requires they.
Compare Architecture with Brands, not just Brands
A search for Vanta and Drata will quickly turn into an exercise of feature-by-feature. Both are established solutions for compliance based on automation and integrations. Therefore, they can be compared in terms of supported frameworks as well as integrations, service contracts, and individual quotations could be beneficial for companies searching for that method.
You’ll have to decide on an additional thing before you do. Does your business have an interest in an integration-driven system for compliance? Certain companies require continuous monitoring and automated evidence collection. Some prefer to provide evidence by themselves, especially when the workload remains modest.
Vanta Competitors do not all use the same format.
A number of famous Vanta competitors compete in the same category of automation. There are also more lightweight platforms that focus on organizing rather than extensive system connectivity.
CertAssist is a part of the latter category. CertAssist was designed by internal auditors as well as compliance consultants. It organizes framework controls into a single workspace that gives editable guidance on policies and evidence. Auditors are able to review the evidence submitted through a read-only interface.
It does not, in fact, connect to operational systems or install infrastructure agents. Customers are able to upload any evidence they want to use.
The consideration of access to the System in the Decision
It is apparent that removing integrations can be a disadvantage. One must gather evidence manually.
This is a way to eliminate the need to integrate, and the process of compliance doesn’t require a connection to the operating environment.
Both architectures are equally excellent. The key question is what option is most appropriate for your organization.
CertAssist is targeted at companies with five to 200 employees and gives pricing information, rather than having to have an actual sales call. The starting price is $225 per month that’s a difference from the normal cost of $375 per month.
Let Complexity Take Its Place
What is required of a startup that has 10 employees aren’t necessarily the same as those of companies with 100 or 500 employees.
While compliance is simple, a lightweight platform may be a good idea. As the number of employees, systems as well as frameworks and evidence requirements grow, the economics will ultimately favor more automation. It’s better to let complexity of compliance technology take its place.
Do not pay for 50 integrations just because they look impressive in a chart of comparison. It is best to pay for them only when they are necessary and the cost for doing the job they replace manually is more expensive.