Compare
See how AuditFront compares to enterprise compliance platforms, and understand the differences between major compliance frameworks.
AuditFront vs. Competitors
Looking for an alternative to enterprise GRC platforms? Compare features, pricing, and approach.
AuditFront vs Drata: Assessment-First Compliance Without the Enterprise Price Tag
Drata has built a strong reputation as a compliance automation platform, emphasizing continuous monitoring and automated evidence collection. It serves companies pursuing SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, and other frameworks, and has raised significant venture capital to expand its enterprise feature set. However, like most compliance automation platforms, Drata's pricing starts at roughly $10,000 per year and scales significantly with company size and framework count. For startups and SMBs that need compliance guidance rather than enterprise automation, this represents a significant upfront investment with uncertain ROI. AuditFront offers a fundamentally different model: transparent pricing starting from free, assessment-driven workflows that help you understand your compliance posture before you invest in automation, and unique coverage of Technology Due Diligence alongside traditional frameworks.
Read comparison →Drata vs Secureframe: Compliance Automation Platforms Compared — Features, Pricing, and Who They Are Built For
Drata and Secureframe are two of the most prominent compliance automation platforms competing for the same market: companies that need to achieve and maintain SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, or other compliance certifications with minimal manual effort. Both launched around the same time — Drata in 2020, Secureframe in 2020 — and have grown rapidly to serve thousands of customers. They share a similar value proposition: connect your infrastructure, automate evidence collection, and streamline the audit process. Where they diverge is in philosophy. Drata has invested heavily in user experience, building what many consider the most visually polished compliance platform on the market, with 100+ integrations and a developer-friendly API. Secureframe has taken a more support-driven approach, pairing its platform with dedicated compliance managers and being one of the few enterprise compliance tools to publish baseline pricing on its website — a refreshing departure from the industry norm of mandatory sales calls. For companies evaluating both platforms, the decision often comes down to priorities: do you value a superior UI and integration depth (Drata), or do you prioritize transparent pricing and hands-on human support (Secureframe)? This comparison examines both platforms across six key dimensions to help you make an informed choice. We also address a reality that applies to both: these are enterprise-priced tools, and if your budget is constrained, there are more accessible alternatives worth considering.
Read comparison →AuditFront vs Secureframe: Start Free Instead of $8K/Year
Secureframe is one of the more transparent compliance automation platforms when it comes to pricing — they actually publish starting prices on their website, which is refreshing in an industry dominated by 'contact sales' buttons. Their Essential plan starts at approximately $8,000 per year, with Premium and Elite tiers scaling to $20,000+ annually. While this is more transparent than competitors like Vanta and Drata, it still represents a significant investment for early-stage startups and small businesses that are just beginning their compliance journey. AuditFront offers a genuinely free starting point with transparent, published pricing for every tier. This comparison examines where each platform excels and helps you determine which approach to compliance fits your current needs and budget.
Read comparison →AuditFront vs Sprinto: EU-First Compliance for European Companies
Sprinto is a compliance automation platform that has gained significant traction in the Indian market and is expanding internationally. It offers automated compliance monitoring for SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, and other frameworks, with pricing that is generally more competitive than US-based alternatives like Vanta and Drata. However, Sprinto's roots in the Indian market mean its integrations, support model, and compliance expertise are primarily optimized for that ecosystem. For European companies — particularly those navigating EU-specific regulations like NIS2 — a platform designed with Europe as the primary market offers significant advantages. AuditFront is built EU-first, with native NIS2 support, GDPR workflows designed around European data protection principles, and transparent pricing starting from a free tier.
Read comparison →AuditFront vs Vanta: The Transparent Alternative for Startups & SMBs
Vanta has established itself as a leading compliance automation platform, primarily serving mid-market and enterprise companies with automated evidence collection and continuous monitoring. However, its enterprise-focused pricing model — starting at roughly $10,000/year and scaling to $80,000+ for larger organizations — puts it out of reach for most startups and SMBs. Worse, Vanta requires mandatory sales calls before you can even see pricing, making it impossible to budget for compliance upfront. AuditFront takes a fundamentally different approach: transparent pricing starting from a free tier, purpose-built self-assessment workflows, and coverage that extends beyond traditional compliance frameworks to include Technology Due Diligence. This comparison breaks down the key differences to help you decide which platform fits your stage, budget, and compliance goals.
Read comparison →Vanta vs Drata: Enterprise Compliance Platforms Compared — And Why Neither May Be Right for You
Vanta and Drata are the two most frequently compared compliance automation platforms on the market. Both target mid-market and enterprise companies with automated evidence collection, continuous monitoring, and multi-framework support. If you have been evaluating compliance tools, you have almost certainly encountered both — and you have probably noticed that neither publishes transparent pricing, making an informed comparison frustratingly difficult. Vanta launched in 2018 and has grown into the largest compliance automation platform by market share, raising over $203 million in funding and achieving a valuation north of $2.45 billion. Drata entered the market in 2020 and gained rapid traction by emphasizing a cleaner user interface and a developer-friendly onboarding experience, raising $328 million with a $2 billion valuation. Both platforms now support 20+ compliance frameworks and maintain extensive integration libraries. Despite their similarities, meaningful differences exist in pricing structure, automation approach, user experience, and ideal customer profile. This comparison examines those differences honestly, without marketing spin. We also address the elephant in the room: both platforms require annual contracts typically ranging from $10,000 to $80,000 per year, which puts them firmly in enterprise territory. If you are a startup or SMB looking for compliance readiness without enterprise pricing, we will point you to a more accessible alternative at the end.
Read comparison →Framework Comparisons
Not sure which framework you need? These guides break down the key differences.
GDPR vs CCPA/CPRA: How the World's Two Major Privacy Laws Compare — Scope, Rights, Penalties, and Compliance
The EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and California's Consumer Privacy Act as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CCPA/CPRA) are the two most influential privacy laws in the world. Together, they have reshaped how companies collect, process, store, and share personal data — and they have spawned a wave of similar legislation in other jurisdictions. For any company operating internationally or serving customers in both Europe and the United States, understanding the differences between these two laws is not optional; it is a business necessity. GDPR took effect on May 25, 2018 and applies to any organization that processes personal data of individuals in the European Economic Area (EEA), regardless of where the organization is located. It is a consent-first regime: you generally need a lawful basis (often explicit consent) before processing personal data. Violations can result in fines of up to EUR 20 million or 4% of global annual turnover, whichever is higher. The CCPA took effect on January 1, 2020, and was significantly strengthened by the CPRA, which became operative on January 1, 2023 and introduced a dedicated enforcement agency (the California Privacy Protection Agency, or CPPA). CCPA/CPRA applies to for-profit businesses that meet specific revenue or data-processing thresholds and that collect personal information from California residents. Unlike GDPR, it follows an opt-out model: businesses can collect and use personal data by default, but must give consumers the right to opt out of the sale or sharing of their information. Despite their different philosophical approaches, both laws grant individuals significant rights over their personal data, and many companies — particularly those with global operations — must comply with both simultaneously.
Read comparison →ISO 27001 vs SOC 2: Which Compliance Framework Do You Need?
ISO 27001 and SOC 2 are the two most commonly requested security compliance frameworks for technology companies. While both demonstrate that an organization takes information security seriously, they differ significantly in their approach, regional recognition, scope, and certification process. ISO 27001 is an international standard published by the International Organization for Standardization, recognized globally but particularly valued in Europe and Asia. SOC 2 is a reporting framework developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), primarily recognized in North America. Understanding the differences between these frameworks is essential for choosing the right compliance path for your business — or determining whether you need both.
Read comparison →NIS2 vs ISO 27001: EU Regulation vs International Standard — How They Work Together
With the EU's NIS2 Directive coming into full enforcement across member states, many European companies face a question: how does NIS2 relate to ISO 27001, and do we need to comply with both? The short answer is that they are fundamentally different instruments — NIS2 is a regulatory directive with legal obligations and penalties, while ISO 27001 is a voluntary international standard — but they complement each other significantly. Understanding the relationship between these two frameworks is essential for building an efficient compliance strategy that satisfies regulatory requirements while leveraging international best practices. Companies that already hold ISO 27001 certification have a significant head start on NIS2 compliance, and those starting fresh can build a unified approach that covers both.
Read comparison →SOC 2 Type 1 vs Type 2: Which Report Do You Need and When?
When pursuing SOC 2 compliance, one of the first decisions you face is whether to start with a Type 1 or Type 2 report. Both are issued by licensed CPA firms under the AICPA's Trust Services Criteria, but they differ fundamentally in what they evaluate and how much time they require. Understanding this difference is critical for planning your compliance timeline, budget, and the expectations of your customers. Many companies treat Type 1 as a stepping stone to Type 2, but the right approach depends on your specific situation, customer requirements, and how quickly you need to demonstrate compliance.
Read comparison →Try AuditFront free
All frameworks included on every plan. No credit card required.
Start free assessment