Let’s say the cost of a compliance program is $12,000 per year. Is it expensive?
It’s dependent on the part you’re replacing.
Automating the collection of evidence across a complex technology environment can eliminate hundreds of hours of repetitive work then $12,000 could be an appropriate amount to spend. If a startup with seven employees could manually gather the same proof in the space of a few hours every month, the result is very different.
It’s a great method to begin your look for Vanta. Identifying the platform with the most features isn’t the only thing to consider. Ask what those features will allow your company to save time and work.
Automation Can be a Break-Even Economic At this
It’s not inherently either good or negative. Scale can alter its value. Imagine a technology firm that is growing, with several cloud environments, a variety of applications and frequent changes to access. The manual process of collecting evidence can be a major burden for the operation. Integrations that automate monitoring systems and gather evidence can easily justify the cost.
Now consider a 10-person startup getting ready for its first SOC 2. It might have a smaller infrastructure, and the documentation of the evidence could be managed without extensive automation.
That difference matters when evaluating Vanta pricing. A high-end platform can offer vast capabilities, but these capabilities deliver financial value only in the event that an organization really requires these capabilities.
Compare Architecture and Not Just Brands
Searching for Vanta Vs. Drata will quickly turn into a feature-by -feature test. It is important to compare the services, features, contracts and quotes of each platform. Both are well-established compliance platforms that concentrate on integrations and automation.
Another decision needs to be made first, however. Does your business have an interest in an integrated platform that can help you achieve compliance? Some companies want continuous monitoring and automated evidence collection. Others prefer to present evidence on their own, especially if the volume of work is low.
Vanta Competitors do not all use the same pattern.
A number of famous Vanta competitors compete within a similar automation-focused category. There are platforms with a lighter design that focus more on the system’s organization, rather than connectivity.
CertAssist falls into the latter category. CertAssist was created by internal auditors and compliance specialists. It combines framework controls into a single work space and offers editable guidelines on policies and evidence. Auditors can examine the evidence provided through a purely read interface.
It intentionally doesn’t connect to operational systems nor create infrastructure agents. Customers upload their own evidence.
Consideration should be given to the access to the system.
Eliminating integrations has a distinct disadvantage: someone must collect evidence manually.
It also eliminates integration setup and this means that the compliance application doesn’t require standing connections to the organization’s operational environment.
The designs of either are not superior to each other. It is crucial to determine what tradeoffs are appropriate for your particular business.
CertAssist is geared towards teams of between five and 200 individuals. It also publishes its pricing instead of requiring the salesperson to discuss the beginning price. The advertised price of launch for CertAssist is $225 monthly, as opposed to a regular $375.
Let Complexity Take Its Place
The requirements for a start-up that a 10 person company has today may not be the same when you have 500 or 100 employees.
A lighter platform can make sense if compliance remains simple. The economics of automation can be increased as systems, employees and frameworks increase. Allow complexity to take the lead when buying compliance technologies.
Don’t buy fifty integrations merely because they appear attractive in a chart of comparison. They’re worth the cost to perform the tasks they automate is more expensive than manually performing them.