AuditBoard vs Drata: Enterprise GRC Platform Comparison

Choosing between AuditBoard and Drata is one of the most consequential platform decisions we help clients navigate -- because it is not really about features. It is about matching a platform's philosophy to where your compliance program actually is today and where it needs to be in two years.

AuditBoard and Drata represent two fundamentally different approaches to compliance management that happen to overlap in the SOC 2 space -- AuditBoard is an enterprise GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance) platform designed for organizations with dedicated compliance and internal audit teams, while Drata is a compliance automation platform designed to make SOC 2 and related frameworks accessible to technology companies of all sizes. The overlap occurs because both platforms help organizations manage SOC 2 compliance, but they approach the problem from opposite directions: Drata starts with automated evidence collection and continuous monitoring for SOC 2, then expands into broader GRC capabilities, while AuditBoard starts with enterprise audit management, risk assessment, and compliance program governance, then applies those capabilities to SOC 2 among many other frameworks. Choosing between them is less about which platform is "better" and more about which approach matches your organization's compliance maturity, team structure, and long-term GRC needs. A fifty-person startup pursuing its first SOC 2 will find Drata intuitive and purpose-built for their needs, while a five-hundred-person company with a dedicated compliance team managing SOC 2, SOX, ISO 27001, and internal audit simultaneously will find AuditBoard's enterprise GRC architecture far more suitable.

This comparison evaluates AuditBoard and Drata across target market, feature depth, pricing, implementation complexity, and use cases, helping organizations understand which platform matches their compliance maturity and organizational profile.

Platform Overview

AuditBoard at a Glance

Dimension	Details
Platform category	Enterprise GRC platform
Founded	2014
Target market	Mid-market to enterprise organizations (200+ employees); companies with dedicated compliance or internal audit teams
Primary use cases	SOX compliance; SOC 2; internal audit management; enterprise risk management; vendor risk management
Key differentiator	Enterprise-grade GRC architecture; deep audit management; advanced risk assessment and reporting
Pricing model	Enterprise pricing; annual contracts; typically $30,000-$100,000+ annually depending on modules
Implementation complexity	High -- requires dedicated implementation; typically 8-16 weeks
Best for	Organizations with mature compliance programs, multiple frameworks, and dedicated GRC teams

Drata at a Glance

Dimension	Details
Platform category	Compliance automation platform
Founded	2020
Target market	Startups through mid-market (10-1,000+ employees); technology companies pursuing SOC 2 and related frameworks
Primary use cases	SOC 2; ISO 27001; HIPAA; GDPR; PCI DSS; continuous compliance monitoring
Key differentiator	Automated evidence collection; continuous monitoring; rapid time-to-compliance; developer-friendly
Pricing model	Tiered pricing; annual contracts; typically $10,000-$50,000 annually depending on tier and features
Implementation complexity	Moderate -- 2-6 weeks for standard implementation; integration-driven
Best for	Technology companies prioritizing SOC 2 automation, continuous monitoring, and efficient compliance

Head-to-Head Comparison

Feature Comparison

Feature Area	AuditBoard	Drata	Analysis
Evidence collection automation	Semi-automated; integration-assisted with manual supplement	Fully automated for supported integrations; 200+ native integrations	Drata leads -- deeper automated evidence collection; more integrations
Continuous monitoring	Monitoring capabilities available; not primary focus	Core platform feature; real-time compliance drift detection	Drata leads -- continuous monitoring is foundational to Drata
Policy management	Enterprise-grade; multi-level approval workflows; advanced version control	Strong policy management; templates; acknowledgment tracking	AuditBoard leads for enterprise complexity; Drata sufficient for most
Risk assessment	Advanced risk management; enterprise risk register; quantitative risk analysis	Built-in risk register; standard risk assessment workflows	AuditBoard leads significantly -- risk management is a core competency
Vendor management	Enterprise vendor risk management; comprehensive assessment workflows	Automated vendor assessment; compliance tracking; risk categorization	AuditBoard leads for enterprise scale; Drata adequate for mid-market
Internal audit management	Dedicated audit management module; audit planning; workpaper management	Not a primary feature; compliance audit support rather than internal audit	AuditBoard leads -- internal audit is a core module; Drata does not compete here
Reporting and dashboards	Advanced enterprise analytics; customizable dashboards; executive reporting	Comprehensive compliance dashboards; health scoring; trend analysis	AuditBoard leads for enterprise reporting; Drata strong for compliance-specific
Trust Center	Available	Available; strong prospect-facing compliance sharing	Comparable; Drata's Trust Center more commonly used by target market
Framework coverage	SOC 2, SOX, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, custom frameworks, 20+ frameworks	SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, PCI DSS, SOC 1, CCPA, 15+ frameworks	AuditBoard broader; Drata covers most common compliance frameworks
SOX compliance	Major strength; dedicated SOX module with full lifecycle management	Not available -- SOX is outside Drata's scope	AuditBoard only -- SOX-required organizations must use AuditBoard or equivalent

Scoring Summary (1-10)

Category	AuditBoard	Drata	Notes
SOC 2 evidence automation	6	9	Drata purpose-built for automated SOC 2 evidence collection
Continuous monitoring	5	9	Continuous monitoring is Drata's core value proposition
Policy management	9	8	Both strong; AuditBoard enterprise-grade; Drata growth-stage optimized
Risk assessment	9	7	AuditBoard's risk management is enterprise-class
Vendor management	9	7	AuditBoard enterprise-scale; Drata mid-market appropriate
Reporting	9	8	AuditBoard advanced analytics; Drata comprehensive compliance reporting
Ease of implementation	4	8	Drata significantly faster to deploy; AuditBoard requires more setup
Ease of use	5	8	Drata more intuitive for compliance teams without GRC background
Startup fit	3	9	Drata designed for startups; AuditBoard not positioned for startup market
Enterprise fit	9	6	AuditBoard designed for enterprise; Drata growing enterprise capabilities
Pricing value	5	8	Drata more accessible pricing; AuditBoard pricing justified by enterprise depth
Integration ecosystem	6	9	Drata 200+ integrations; AuditBoard focused on enterprise tool ecosystem

Target Market Analysis

Who Each Platform Serves Best

Organization Profile	AuditBoard	Drata
Startup (10-50 employees)	Not recommended -- over-engineered and overpriced for startup needs	Excellent fit -- purpose-built for rapid SOC 2 compliance
Growth stage (50-200 employees)	Not typically appropriate unless enterprise GRC needs already exist	Excellent fit -- scales with organization growth; strong automation
Mid-market (200-500 employees)	Good fit if dedicated GRC team exists and multiple frameworks required	Good fit -- especially if SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are primary frameworks
Enterprise (500-2,000 employees)	Excellent fit -- enterprise GRC capabilities match organizational complexity	Adequate for SOC 2; may need supplementation for broader GRC needs
Enterprise (2,000+ employees)	Primary target market -- full enterprise GRC suite	May lack enterprise GRC depth for very large organizations
Public companies (SOX requirements)	Essential -- SOX compliance is a core module	Not applicable -- SOX is outside Drata's scope

When to Choose AuditBoard

Scenario	Why AuditBoard
Your organization has a dedicated internal audit team	AuditBoard's audit management module supports the full internal audit lifecycle
You need SOX compliance alongside SOC 2	AuditBoard provides integrated SOX and SOC 2 management; Drata does not offer SOX
Your compliance program spans five or more frameworks	AuditBoard's enterprise GRC architecture handles multi-framework complexity better
You have a dedicated GRC team of three or more people	AuditBoard's depth and complexity is justified when a team can fully utilize the platform
Enterprise risk management is a strategic priority	AuditBoard's risk management module is significantly more advanced
Board-level compliance reporting is required	AuditBoard's executive dashboards and reporting are designed for board-level consumption

When to Choose Drata

Scenario	Why Drata
SOC 2 is your primary or first compliance framework	Drata is purpose-built for SOC 2 with the deepest automated evidence collection
Speed to compliance matters	Drata's implementation takes two to six weeks; AuditBoard takes eight to sixteen weeks
Your compliance team is one to two people	Drata's automation reduces the human effort required; manageable without a large team
Integration-driven evidence collection is priority	Drata's 200+ native integrations automate more evidence than AuditBoard
Budget is a significant factor	Drata's pricing starts lower and scales more gradually
Continuous compliance monitoring is a core requirement	Drata's real-time monitoring and drift detection is more developed

Pricing Analysis

Cost Comparison

Pricing Dimension	AuditBoard	Drata
Starting annual price	$30,000-$50,000	$10,000-$20,000
Mid-market annual price	$50,000-$100,000	$20,000-$40,000
Enterprise annual price	$75,000-$150,000+	$35,000-$60,000
Pricing model	Module-based; add-on pricing for additional capabilities	Tier-based; feature access by tier
Implementation cost	$10,000-$30,000 (dedicated implementation)	Included or minimal ($0-$5,000)
Annual price increase	3-8% typical	3-5% typical

Total Cost of Ownership (3-Year)

Organization Size	AuditBoard 3-Year TCO	Drata 3-Year TCO	Cost Difference
Growth stage (100 employees)	$120,000-$200,000	$45,000-$100,000	AuditBoard 2-3x more expensive
Mid-market (500 employees)	$180,000-$350,000	$75,000-$150,000	AuditBoard 2-2.5x more expensive
Enterprise (2,000 employees)	$250,000-$500,000+	$120,000-$200,000	AuditBoard 1.5-2.5x more expensive

The pricing gap is justified when organizations need AuditBoard's enterprise GRC capabilities -- SOX compliance, advanced risk management, internal audit, and enterprise reporting. If SOC 2 and one to two additional frameworks are the primary requirements, Drata provides superior SOC 2 automation at a significantly lower cost.

Implementation and Onboarding

Implementation Comparison

Implementation Dimension	AuditBoard	Drata
Typical implementation timeline	8-16 weeks	2-6 weeks
Implementation approach	Dedicated implementation team; structured methodology	Self-service with guided setup; implementation support available
Professional services	Often required; may be additional cost	Optional; most implementations self-service
Integration setup	Enterprise-focused integrations; fewer native connections	Integration-driven; 200+ native integrations with guided connection
Team training	Comprehensive training program; multiple sessions	Shorter training; intuitive interface reduces training need
Time to first value	2-4 months	2-4 weeks

Key Takeaways

• We consistently see that AuditBoard and Drata serve fundamentally different organizational profiles: AuditBoard is an enterprise GRC platform for organizations with dedicated compliance teams managing multiple frameworks (including SOX), while Drata is a compliance automation platform for technology companies prioritizing SOC 2 and related frameworks with minimal compliance headcount -- choosing between them depends on compliance maturity and organizational complexity, not which platform is objectively "better"
• For SOC 2-specific automation, we recommend Drata as the stronger choice: deeper automated evidence collection (200+ integrations versus AuditBoard's enterprise-focused integration set), purpose-built continuous monitoring, faster implementation (two to six weeks versus eight to sixteen weeks), and lower cost -- AuditBoard's SOC 2 capabilities are adequate but not its primary design focus
• What we tell clients is that AuditBoard justifies its higher price point through enterprise GRC capabilities that Drata does not offer: SOX compliance management, advanced enterprise risk assessment, dedicated internal audit modules, and board-level executive reporting -- organizations that need these capabilities will find AuditBoard essential regardless of Drata's SOC 2 automation advantages
• In our experience, the cost difference is significant: Drata's three-year total cost of ownership is approximately forty to sixty percent of AuditBoard's for equivalent organizational sizes -- the premium for AuditBoard is justified when enterprise GRC depth is required, but organizations whose primary need is SOC 2 automation would overpay with AuditBoard
• We advise clients that the crossover point where AuditBoard becomes appropriate is typically when organizations reach two hundred or more employees with dedicated GRC teams, manage three or more compliance frameworks simultaneously, require SOX compliance, or have board-level reporting requirements -- below this threshold, Drata (or similar compliance automation platforms) provides better value
• At Agency, we help organizations evaluate whether their compliance maturity and framework requirements justify enterprise GRC investment (AuditBoard) or whether compliance automation (Drata) provides sufficient capability at a lower cost -- ensuring platform selection matches current needs while anticipating future growth

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Drata grow with us into enterprise GRC needs?

Based on what we see across our client base, Drata continues to expand its enterprise capabilities -- adding advanced risk management, vendor management depth, and broader framework support. For organizations whose primary GRC needs remain centered on SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and similar compliance frameworks, Drata's expanding capabilities may be sufficient even at enterprise scale. However, if your organization requires SOX compliance, advanced internal audit management, quantitative risk analysis, or board-level GRC reporting, we advise that Drata is unlikely to replace a dedicated enterprise GRC platform. Many organizations we work with use Drata for SOC 2 and compliance automation while supplementing with specialized tools for internal audit or enterprise risk management.

Should we start with Drata and switch to AuditBoard later?

What we tell clients is that starting with Drata for your initial SOC 2 and then evaluating AuditBoard as your compliance program matures is a reasonable strategy. Drata's faster implementation and lower cost make it an efficient starting point, and if your needs evolve to require enterprise GRC capabilities, migrating to AuditBoard is feasible (though it involves platform switching costs). The key consideration is timing: switch to AuditBoard between audit cycles, not during an observation period. If you know with certainty that SOX compliance or enterprise GRC capabilities will be needed within twelve to eighteen months, starting with AuditBoard may avoid the switching cost. If SOC 2 is the immediate priority and enterprise GRC is uncertain or further out, starting with Drata is more cost-effective.

Can we use both platforms simultaneously?

In our experience, running AuditBoard and Drata simultaneously is generally not recommended -- it creates dual maintenance, separate evidence repositories, and confusion about which platform is the source of truth. Some organizations use Drata for SOC 2 continuous monitoring and evidence collection while using AuditBoard for enterprise risk management and internal audit -- treating them as complementary rather than overlapping. This approach works if the platforms cover different functional areas with minimal overlap. However, if both platforms are managing SOC 2 compliance, the duplication creates more work than it eliminates. We recommend choosing one platform for SOC 2 and using the other (if needed) for capabilities the primary platform does not cover.

How do auditors feel about each platform?

What we consistently hear from auditors we work with is that they are comfortable with both AuditBoard and Drata -- both provide auditor access portals, structured evidence presentation, and documentation that supports the audit process. AuditBoard may have an advantage with auditors from larger firms who encounter it more frequently in enterprise engagements. Drata may have an advantage with auditors from firms that specialize in technology companies and are familiar with its evidence format. Ultimately, auditors evaluate the evidence, not the platform -- either platform can produce evidence that satisfies audit requirements. We recommend asking your auditor about their familiarity with both platforms during the selection process.