Imagine a platform for compliance costs you $12,000 per year. Does that sound pricey?
It’s dependent on the part you’re replacing.
If $12,000 is spent to reduce the time spent in the repetitive gathering of evidence across an extremely complex technology environment It could be that is well-invested. The math would be different if a startup of seven individuals could gather the same evidence in just a few minutes each month.
That’s a useful way to approach the search for a Vanta alternative. Don’t start with asking which platform has the greatest features. Consider how much time and effort those tools can help save your company.
Automation is an economic break-even Factor
Automation of compliance isn’t intrinsically beneficial or harmful. The value of it changes as you grow. Imagine a technology company that is growing with hundreds of employees, many cloud environments, many applications, and regular access changes. The manual process of gathering evidence can cause a significant operational burden. Integrations that monitor systems automatically and collect evidence may quickly justify their cost.
Imagine a startup with 10 employees working on their first SOC 2. Imagine a startup having 10 employees preparing for its first SOC 2.
This distinction is crucial in evaluating the pricing offered by Vanta. A modern platform may provide large capabilities, but those capabilities are only beneficial when the company actually needs these capabilities.
Compare Architecture and not just Brands
Vanta Vs Drata is a comparison which can be easily a feature by feature exercise. Both are well-established systems for compliance built around automation and integrations, so the comparison of their frameworks supported as well as integrations, service contracts, and individual quotations can be useful for organizations searching for that method.
There’s another decision to make before that. Does your business want an integrated compliance platform at all? Certain businesses require automated evidence collection and continuous monitoring. Some companies prefer to collect evidence on their own.
Vanta Competitors Do Not All Use the same model
Several well-known Vanta competitors have a place in the market, with a similar focus on automation. On the market, there are platforms that have a more minimalist design that focus more on organization rather than connectivity.
CertAssist is a member of the second group. CertAssist is a product developed by compliance consultants, internal auditors, and other professionals, is a system for organizing controls frameworks within a central workspace. It allows for the editing of policies and guidance for the auditing process, and allows auditors to view evidence through read-only access.
It doesn’t install agents or connect to infrastructure systems. Customers can upload their own documentation.
Factor System Access Into the Decision
Removing integrations has an obvious disadvantage: one must collect evidence manually.
The application for compliance doesn’t require any integration and can be used without any permanent connections to the operational environment.
The architectures are not universally superior. It is important to ask which tradeoffs make sense for your company.
CertAssist will target teams of between five to 200 members. The price is disclosed rather than having to make an appointment with sales representatives to find the initial cost. The starting price is $225 monthly, which is a significant reduction from the standard price of $375 a month.
Let Complexity Earn Its Place
The requirements for a start-up that a 10 person company has today might differ at 500 or 100 employees.
Compliance can be managed with the help of a basic platform. The cost of automation could be increased as systems, employees and frameworks multiply. That’s a healthier way to acquire compliance technologies Let complexity earn its place.
Don’t spend money on fifty integrations merely because they appear attractive in a chart of comparison. They are worth paying for to perform the tasks they take over is more costly than performing them manually.