Let’s suppose that a compliance system is $12,000 per year. Does that sound pricey?
The answer is dependent on what it replaces.
If technology can eliminate hundreds of hours of repetitive evidence collection in a tangled technology landscape, $12,000 could be money well spent. If a seven-person startup could gather the same data manually, in a couple of hours every month, the total appears to be quite different.
It’s a good way to start your look for Vanta. Identifying the platform with the best features is not the first step. Ask what those features will help your business save time and effort.
Automation Can be a Break-Even Economic The Key
Automating compliance isn’t necessarily good or bad. The value of compliance automation alters as the business grows. Imagine a growing technology company with multiple cloud environments and various applications. Manually collecting evidence could be a huge operational burden. Integrations that automatically monitor systems and gather evidence can easily justify the expense.
Imagine a startup of 10 people preparing to undergo the initial SOC 2. audit. Its infrastructure might be small, and evidence collection is still manageable even without extensive automation.
This is a crucial distinction when looking at Vanta pricing. A sophisticated platform can provide vast capabilities, but these capabilities are only beneficial when an organization actually requires they.
Compare Architecture with Brands, not just Brands
Finding Vanta or Drata quickly turns into a feature by -feature exercise. Both are well-established systems for compliance built around automation and integrations, so looking at their supported frameworks, integrations, service, contracts, and individual quotes could prove useful to companies who are looking for a similar approach.
There’s another decision to make before that. Are you interested in an integration-driven platform for compliance? Certain businesses would prefer continuous monitoring, automated evidence collection, and automated evidence gathering. Other businesses would prefer to provide their own evidence, especially when the workload is low.
Vanta Competitors Don’t Follow the Same Model
Many well-known Vanta competitors compete within a similar automation-focused category. The market also includes smaller platforms based on management rather than comprehensive system connectivity.
CertAssist is a part of the latter group. CertAssist, created by compliance consultants, internal auditors, and other professionals, organizes the controls frameworks in a central workspace. It lets you edit policies and guidelines for the auditing process, and allows auditors to examine evidence with read-only access.
It does not set up agents or connect to the infrastructure system. Customers choose and upload the proof they wish to present.
It is important to consider the access to the system.
Eliminating integrations has a distinct disadvantage: someone must collect evidence by hand.
It also gets rid of integration setup and means the compliance application does not require standing connections to the operational environment.
Both architectures are equally good. The relevant question is which option is most appropriate for your company.
CertAssist is aimed at teams of between five and 200 people and publishes its pricing rather than requiring an initial sales call to determine the starting figure. The starting price is $225 per month which compares to the regular price of $375 a month.
Let Complexity earn its place
The requirements for a start-up that has 10 employees aren’t necessarily similar to the needs of companies with 100 or 500 employees.
Although compliance is easy an easy platform can make sense. When systems, employees frameworks, and evidence requirements grow, the economics will ultimately favor more automation. This is a better way to invest in compliance technology and let complexity take its place.
Do not purchase fifty different integrations because they appear impressive on the chart of comparison. They are worth paying for to perform the tasks they are replacing is more costly than manually performing them.