Menu
Vendor-published schedules
Compare stated cadence
Vanta: hourly tests. Comp AI: daily connected checks. Drata and Scrut: daily control tests. Secureframe: daily, weekly, or monthly by test. TrustCloud: a buyer-configured frequency per control.
16 platforms · Last updated
Compliance automation software for SOC 2
Compliance automation software for SOC 2 collects evidence and runs recurring checks for connected systems. It does not automate every control. In our reviewed source set, vendors publish different schedules, including Vanta’s hourly tests, Comp AI’s daily connected checks, and Drata’s daily evening run.
This comparison covers core SOC 2 platforms with documented continuous control testing. The table separates recurring tests from evidence work that remains manual.
The deciding question
Compare documented SOC 2 automation coverage
Every platform here clears the same continuous-testing filter. Compare only the decision-changing evidence: published cadence, native versus mapped framework design, remaining manual work, and whether a price is published before a sales call. “Not established” means the reviewed sources did not support a stronger claim.
Featured firms pay to appear first. Every firm here cleared our fit bar first; payment cannot add a firm or change its facts. Sort any column to reorder.
| Pricing | Testing cadence, and who says so | Frameworks: native or mapped | Where it still asks for it by hand | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comp AI Sponsored Engineering-led teams that value inspectable code or the option to self-host | Quote-based | Continuous: daily connected checks; Device Agent checks four device controls hourly | Partial: mapped, not confirmed native per framework | A failed automation needs a manual re-run or check, per a G2 review reporting automations that "fail randomly"; SSO and SCIM support is unconfirmed in vendor docs |
| Vanta Cloud-native SaaS teams on mainstream stacks that value a broad integration catalog | Quote-based (reported $7.5K–$57K/yr) | Continuous, hourly, stated by Vanta on its own product page | Partial: documented cross-mapping of overlapping controls, not confirmed fully native per framework | SCIM account lifecycle provisioning is documented, but Vanta says it may require an upgrade or add-on; contract inclusion needs confirmation |
| ComplyJet Small B2B SaaS teams that want hands-on ownership of a first SOC 2 program | Published, $5K–$8K/yr | Continuous, cadence not published | Partial: mapped, not confirmed native per framework | Enterprise-admin automation (SSO, SCIM, RBAC) is undocumented; the audit handoff runs through a 40-plus-firm network rather than published in-platform admin tooling |
| Drata Growth-stage SaaS teams on mainstream stacks that expect to add frameworks over time | Quote-based (reported $9.6K–$60K/yr) | Continuous: daily, every evening at 19:00 PST, stated in Drata’s Help Center | Partial: shared and cross-mapped across 30-plus frameworks, not confirmed fully native per framework | SCIM-fed group-to-role synchronization is documented, but full user-account creation and deactivation remain unestablished |
| Secureframe Teams seeking expert guidance with a published Fundamentals starting price | Published, from $7K/yr | Continuous: daily, weekly, or monthly by test; point-in-time evidence defaults quarterly or annually | Native: the vendor states each framework gets its own control mapping and automated tests | SSO and SCIM are gated to the Complete tier and above, so the entry Fundamentals plan has neither automated |
| Sprinto Early- to growth-stage SaaS teams seeking a guided, lower-cost first audit | Quote-based (reported $6K–$25K/yr) | Continuous, cadence not published | Partial: its own pricing page separates 25-plus frameworks "automated out of the box" from 200-plus "digitized", so most of the marketed count is mapped rather than natively automated | Current vendor material does not establish SCIM or automated provisioning; data-security-heavy buyers also need separate DLP or DSPM tooling |
| Strike Graph Growth-stage teams wanting plan-based public pricing across several frameworks | Published, $10K–$35K/yr | Continuous, cadence not published | Partial: mapped, not confirmed native per framework | AI-assisted questionnaire automation is reserved for the $21,500 a year Scale tier and above; the free option caps at 2 integrations and 15 evidence attachments |
| Anecdotes Multi-framework security and GRC teams with a dedicated compliance function and an enterprise budget | Quote-based (reported $47K–$78K/yr) | Continuous, cadence not published | Partial: one shared evidence layer mapped across frameworks, per the vendor’s own positioning | Reviewers report occasional integration timeouts and incomplete evidence pulls that need a support ticket to resolve by hand |
| Thoropass Teams wanting software and a connected audit process from the same provider | Quote-based (reported from $15K/yr) | Continuous, cadence not published | Native: the vendor states a fully native control set per framework | Not established: no independent source breaks out which evidence types still require manual upload, beyond the bundled audit workflow |
| Trustero Multi-framework GRC teams or MSSPs that want a shared control library | Quote-based (reported $5K–$25K/yr) | Continuous, cadence not published | Partial: markets itself as framework agnostic, mapping a shared control library across many regulations rather than fully native per-framework control sets | The vendor’s own guidance is to verify coverage depth yourself before buying if you need only one narrow framework |
| Carbide Early-stage SaaS companies that want hands-on guidance for a first compliance framework | Published, $7.5K–$22K/yr | Continuous, cadence not published | Partial: a shared blueprint crosswalked to each framework rather than separate native control sets, per the vendor’s own platform page | Enterprise access controls (SSO, SCIM, RBAC) are undocumented, so admin-level evidence for a larger team is not confirmed automated |
| Scytale Startups without compliance expertise: software plus hands-on advisory in Build DFY or Build Stronger | Quote-based (reported from $7.5K/yr) | Continuous, cadence not published | Native: its own control set per framework, not a SOC 2 crosswalk | Okta confirms create, update, and deactivate provisioning, but Scytale does not publish the included tier; extra frameworks, questionnaire service, and expert support are separate line items |
| TrustCloud GRC teams handling several frameworks, trust reviews, and security questionnaires together | Quote-based | Continuous: per-control frequency configured by the customer; no default published | Partial: mapped, not confirmed native per framework | Not established: no independent source breaks out which evidence types still require manual upload |
| Scrut Automation Growth-stage tech teams managing SOC 2 alongside other frameworks | Quote-based (reported from $15K/yr) | Continuous: daily tests against configured controls, stated in its FAQ | Partial: mapped, not confirmed native per framework | Okta lists SCIM capability, but current public sources do not establish the included tier or each identity provider’s lifecycle behavior |
| Oneleet Security-conscious startups wanting compliance, penetration testing, and light vCISO help together | Quote-based (reported $8K–$60K/yr) | Continuous, cadence not published | Partial: mapped, not confirmed native per framework | Anything outside its 22 published integrations is evidence gathered by hand; reviewers describe its framework rollout as sequential, SOC 2 first, rather than parallel |
| Zania Enterprise GRC teams using AI-assisted evidence testing across several frameworks | Quote-based | Continuous, interval not published | Partial: maps controls once and reuses them across frameworks | The native integration count, SCIM provisioning, multi-entity administration, and implementation timeline are not publicly established |
Pricing disclosure and observed bands come from our GRC software directory. Capability ratings and native-versus-mapped status carry per-claim retrieval dates there. Where a reviewed record supports one, the table reports its published schedule: Vanta hourly; Comp AI daily connected checks plus four hourly device checks; Drata and Scrut daily; Secureframe by test; and TrustCloud by customer configuration. Other eligible records use continuous testing without a published interval. Where no source states what still happens manually, the cell reads "Not established" rather than a guess.
How to read this table
Start with the automation constraint that could rule a tool out
Automation is not a single feature. First decide whether you need a published test schedule, separate control sets per framework, or connector coverage for your stack. These routes are not scores: inspect the complete evidence row, contract tier, and manual fallback before choosing.
Per-framework control design
Check native-control evidence
Our directory grades Secureframe, Scytale, and Thoropass native per framework. Secureframe states this directly; Scytale and Thoropass are assessments of their published framework design. Other eligible records are mapped, shared, or unconfirmed.
Catalogue size, not coverage
Match your actual stack
Comp AI lists 590 integrations, Vanta 400, and ComplyJet 350. Those are the three largest recorded catalogues, not a measure of test depth or coverage of your environment.
What does compliance automation software automate?
Automated compliance software for SOC 2 connects to your stack, collects evidence, and repeats control tests on a schedule. A workflow that asks someone to attach a screenshot can organize an audit. It does not test a connected control. The same platform can do both, which is why a published test cadence is the discriminator here, not a feature list. The difference is the remaining manual workload.
We used one test to build the eligible set: the directory record must confirm continuous control testing at its highest rated level, separate from the general evidence-automation flag almost every platform carries. Most of our core roster clears that bar. Apptega, Delve, Hyperproof, and OneTrust Certification Automation do not: their records show continuous testing as partial or unconfirmed, so we could not separate ongoing automated checks from a periodic or evidence-request workflow.
The table compares every eligible platform on published cadence, native versus mapped framework design, remaining manual work, and whether a price is published before a sales call. Each row comes from the maintained platform record rather than one vendor’s claims about its competitors.
Which SOC 2 platforms publish an automation cadence?
Published schedules vary and are not directly comparable. Vanta states hourly tests. Comp AI documents daily connected checks and four hourly Device Agent checks. Drata and Scrut state daily tests. Secureframe names daily, weekly, and monthly checks by test. TrustCloud lets the customer configure a per-control frequency. Other eligible records qualify on recurring monitoring without publishing an interval, so the table preserves that gap instead of guessing.
A second split matters as much as cadence: whether a platform tests each framework’s own native control set or runs one shared control layer crosswalked across frameworks. Our directory grades Secureframe, Scytale, and Thoropass native per framework. Secureframe states this directly; the Scytale and Thoropass grades are evidence-based assessments of their published framework design. The rest, including Vanta and Drata, use a shared or mapped control layer or do not establish a native one. A claim like "we support eight frameworks" can describe one control library mapped eight ways.
Integration count answers a narrower question than buyers assume: how many systems a platform could reach, not how much of your environment it actually tests. Comp AI’s reviewed catalog lists 590 integrations; Vanta lists 400. Run the actual connector list against your cloud accounts, SaaS tools, and identity systems before treating either number as coverage. Scheduled connector tests, evidence requests, and remaining manual controls are different workflows; this comparison does not count an evidence request as enterprise continuous control monitoring.
Where automation stops and you still do the work
Identity and access evidence is the most consistent manual gap in this set. SSO and SCIM can automate account lifecycle evidence, but vendors often gate the feature or leave the included tier unstated. Secureframe starts SSO and SCIM Connections on Complete. Vanta says SCIM may require an upgrade or add-on. Sprinto does not establish SCIM in current vendor materials. Drata documents group-to-role synchronization but not the full account lifecycle. Confirm the required operations on the quoted package instead of assuming every named integration removes the manual work.
Smaller catalogues create a different manual-work problem. Oneleet publishes roughly two dozen native integrations, the smallest catalogue among the eligible set, and reviewers describe its framework rollout as sequential. Reviewers report that Anecdotes integrations sometimes time out, while a G2 reviewer describes Comp AI automations failing randomly. In these examples, people handle the remaining evidence work.
None of this replaces the audit. Every platform here, including the three with native per-framework testing, still hands the finished evidence to an independent CPA firm that issues the report. The automation shortens how long evidence collection takes. Our companion guide to SOC 2 automation covers the return-on-investment question if you are still deciding whether to automate at all.
Buyer questions
Frequently asked.
Which SOC 2 compliance tools offer the strongest automation features?
Our GRC software directory rates continuous control testing at the highest confirmed level, not partial or evidence-request automation, for Anecdotes, Carbide, Comp AI, ComplyJet, Drata, Oneleet, Scrut, Scytale, Secureframe, Sprinto, Strike Graph, Thoropass, TrustCloud, Trustero and Vanta. Which one is strongest for your team depends on how many of those integrations actually cover your stack, not the headline count each one publishes.
Can SOC 2 compliance be automated?
Evidence collection and recurring connected tests can be automated. The examination cannot. Every platform in this set still hands finished evidence to an independent CPA firm that issues the report. Automation shortens collection; it does not remove the assessment.
Does a bigger integration count mean better automation?
Not on its own. Comp AI’s reviewed catalog lists 590 integrations, ahead of Vanta’s 400, while carrying a small review footprint and a G2 report that its automations fail randomly. An integration count measures how many systems a platform could reach, not how deeply it tests the ones your company actually runs.
What does continuous testing actually mean?
It should mean a control gets checked on a recurring schedule rather than once before an audit. Vanta, Comp AI, Drata, Secureframe, Scrut, and TrustCloud publish a schedule or per-control configuration, although those values are not directly comparable. Treat continuous elsewhere as a confirmed capability with an unconfirmed frequency, and ask which tests still need manual evidence.
Where does SOC 2 automation typically stop?
Identity and access evidence is the most consistent gap. Secureframe starts SSO and SCIM on Complete; Vanta says SCIM may require an upgrade or add-on; Sprinto does not establish SCIM publicly; Drata establishes role synchronization but not full account lifecycle; and Scytale’s included SCIM tier is unknown. Confirm each required operation on the quoted package.
Does compliance software replace the SOC 2 audit?
No. Every platform in this set, including the ones with native per-framework testing, still hands the finished evidence to an independent CPA firm that issues the report. Automation shortens how long evidence collection takes; it does not remove the assessment itself. Our SOC 2 automation guide covers the return-on-investment question in more depth if you are still deciding whether to automate at all.
Up a level
Related