Imagine that a platform for compliance is $12,000 a year. Does that sound expensive?
The answer is dependent on what it replaces.
Automating the gathering of evidence in a complicated technology environment can eliminate hundreds of hours of tedious work then $12,000 is an appropriate amount to spend. If a company of seven could gather the same data by hand in just a few hours each month, the figure appears to be quite different.
This is an excellent way to search for Vanta alternatives. Don’t begin with asking which platform has the greatest features. Ask how much time and effort these features will save your company.
Automation Has an Economic Break-Even Point
Automating compliance isn’t inherently good or bad. Scale affects its value. Imagine a rapidly growing tech company with hundreds of employees, multiple cloud environments, numerous applications, and constant access changes. The manual process of collecting evidence can become a major administrative burden. Integrations that monitor systems automatically and gather evidence can easily justify the cost.
Take a look at a startup that has 10 employees preparing for their first SOC 2. It could have a smaller infrastructure, and the collection of evidence could be handled with minimal automation.
This is a crucial distinction when looking at Vanta pricing. The capabilities of a high-end platform are amazing, but they only provide financial value when an organization needs them.
Compare Architecture and Not Just Brands
A search for Vanta vs Drata can quickly become a feature-by-feature exercise. The two platforms are built upon automation and are integrated and therefore, companies seeking this type of approach will benefit from comparing the frameworks supported, their integrations and service along with individual quotes and contracts.
You’ll need to decide on an additional thing before you do. Do you think your business is ready for an integration-driven compliance platform in any way? Some companies prefer continuous monitoring and automated evidence collection and automated evidence collection. Some companies prefer to produce their own evidence, especially when their workload is small.
Vanta Competitors Don’t All Follow the same model
Many well-known Vanta competitors compete in the same automation-oriented category. On the market, there are also platforms with less cluttered designs which are focused more on organization rather and connectivity.
CertAssist falls into the latter category. Created by compliance consultants and internal auditors, CertAssist organizes framework controls in a central workspace, allows for the editing of policies and evidence guidance, and permits auditors to look over evidence with read-only access.
It does not install agents or connect to infrastructure systems. Customers decide to upload the documents they would like to share.
Consideration of System Access in the Decision
The elimination of integrations comes with its disadvantages: someone must take the time to collect evidence.
The application for compliance doesn’t require integration and can be used without any ongoing connections to the operational environment.
The architectures of either are not superior to the other. It is essential to inquire which choices are best for your particular business.
CertAssist will target teams of between five and 200 participants. Its pricing is publicized rather than needing a sales call to get the initial price. The initial price is $225 monthly, that’s a difference from the normal price of $375 a month.
Let Complexity Have Its Place
The requirements of a 10 person start-up today might not necessarily match its needs when it has 100 or 500 employees.
The compliance can be maintained using a an easy platform. As employees, systems, frameworks, and evidence requirements grow, the economics will eventually favor deeper automation. That’s a healthier way to invest in compliance technology and let complexity take its rightful place.
Don’t pay for fifty integrations because they appear impressive in a chart of comparison. They are worth paying for in situations where the task they replace is more expensive than performing them manually.