Menu
Conveyor SOC 2 compliance software
Conveyor (founded 2021, headquartered in San Francisco; founder/CEO Chas Ballew) has raised $40M total through a Series B led by SignalFire in June 2025.
By Peter Korpak, Lead Editor · independently researched · Methodology
- Pricing
- Free tier, up to $9.6K/yr
- Source-checked frameworks
- 1
- Integrations
- Not published
- G2 (2026-07-24)
- 4.6 · 91 reviews
Its AI drafts answers to inbound security questionnaires from an approved-content library and claims 95%+ answer accuracy and an 83% cut in review time -- figures that are vendor-reported and not independently audited. A genuine limitation flagged in G2 user reviews (pros-and-cons view) is missing features such as bulk downloads and an unclear product direction for the Trust Center, and a third-party comparison (Inventive.ai, April 2026) argues its AI automation is shallower on complex, narrative-style questionnaire answers than some competitors.
Conveyor has raised a total of $40M: a $12.5M Series A led by Cervin Ventures (announced July 18, 2024) and a $20M Series B led by SignalFire (announced June 12, 2025).
What Conveyor does.
Seven capabilities, graded the same way for every platform in the directory. "Not established" means we looked and could not confirm it, not that the feature is missing.
| Capability | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Automated evidence collection | No | Answers are drafted from an internal approved-content/knowledge library, not pulled automatically as evidence from connected cloud/dev systems; that function belongs to a compliance-automation platform, not Conveyor. Source |
| Auditor workspace | No | Built for infosec, presales, and sales teams answering prospects/customers, not a scoped auditor evidence-request workflow. Source |
| Trust center | Yes | Includes a 'Trust Center Agent' AI assistant embedded in the portal for visitor self-service. Source |
| Security questionnaire answering | Yes | Vendor claims 95%+ automated answer accuracy and roughly 90% questionnaire automation; these are self-reported figures we did not independently verify. Source |
| Enterprise admin (SSO, SCIM, RBAC) | Partial | Enterprise tier lists 'Enterprise Roles and Permissions (RBAC)' explicitly. SSO and SCIM support are not documented on public pricing/product pages, so they remain unconfirmed. Source |
| SCIM 2.0 provisioning | Not established | |
| Continuous control testing | No | The Trust Center shares documents/status and an analytics view; it does not run recurring automated control tests against connected systems. Source |
| Native multi-framework support | Not established | Not directly applicable in the compliance-automation sense; Conveyor's coverage is about questionnaire/document content across frameworks, not native vs. crosswalk-mapped control tests. |
Conveyor publishes a price.
You can read the numbers without a sales call, which is uncommon in this category and worth weighing on its own.
- Disclosure model
- Free tier, up to $9.6K/yr
- Sourced annual range
- USD 0–9,600 / year
- Basis
- Confirmed, 2026-07-24
Software pricing alone does not establish the audit fee. A licensed CPA firm issues the SOC 2 report. A commercial offer may package coordination or the fee, so get the legal provider, deliverable, and amount in writing. See the SOC 2 audit cost guide for scope and budget context.
Who actually issues the report.
Conveyor does not perform or issue SOC 2 examinations. It is a customer-facing layer that shares a company's existing, auditor-issued SOC 2 report (and other security documentation) through a trust center, and uses AI to draft answers to inbound customer security questionnaires from a company's own approved content; the underlying audit remains the work of an independent CPA firm.
Software prepares you for the audit; a licensed CPA firm performs it and issues the report. If you have not picked a firm yet, we list independent SOC 2 auditors separately, and we are not one of them.
1 frameworks checked individually, and how well each is established.
A framework on a marketing page is a vendor claim, not a confirmed capability. We grade the difference rather than repeating the list.
| Framework | Evidence | Note |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | Vendor-claimed | Founder/CEO quote on the About page: 'SOC 2 requests & security questionnaires slow down sales... Conveyor automates all of this work.' Conveyor shares and answers questions about an existing SOC 2 report; it does not perform the audit itself. Source |
Who Conveyor is for, and who it is not.
Good fit
A company with an existing SOC 2 report that is spending significant sales-engineering or security-team time re-answering the same questionnaire content on every deal.
Poor fit
A company that has not yet completed its first SOC 2 audit and needs compliance automation or evidence collection, since Conveyor answers questionnaires and hosts documents rather than helping produce the underlying audit evidence.
Typical buyer: B2B SaaS or security teams fielding a high volume of inbound customer security questionnaires and RFPs that want AI-drafted responses plus a public trust center..
Compare Conveyor with three alternatives.
- Comp AI Sponsored
An engineering-led company that values an inspectable, self-hostable compliance platform and wants one vendor scope that can include guided implementation, a trust center, penetration testing, and audit coordination when quoted.
-
A company already running (or planning to run) Drata for SOC 2/ISO evidence collection that wants its trust center and questionnaire response bundled with the same vendor relationship.
-
Teams running a formal, recurring third-party risk program (20+ questionnaires a month or enterprise governance pressure) who also want a trust center to share their own SOC 2 report and answer inbound customer questionnaires from the same platform.
Where every figure on this page came from.
7 sources, each with what it establishes and when we read it. If a claim here is out of date, this is the list that tells you which one to re-check.
- Current pricing tiers: Free (10 Trust Center credits/month, no questionnaire automation or integrations); Business starting at $9,600/year (unlimited seats, 100 Trust Center credits, 20 questionnaire credits, 10 RFP projects, volume discounts); Enterprise (custom). Also displays a live G2 badge: 4.6 (91 Ratings). https://www.conveyor.com/pricing
- Founder/CEO Chas Ballew quote naming SOC 2 requests and security questionnaires as the problem Conveyor automates; confirms three G2 badges (Users Love Us, Spring 2025 High Performer, Winter 2025 Momentum Leader). https://www.conveyor.com/company/about
- Conveyor raised a $20M Series B (announced June 12, 2025), led by SignalFire, bringing total funding to $40M. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/conveyor-raises-20m-series-b-to-lead-the-agentic-ai-race-in-customer-trust-automation-for-security-reviews-and-rfps-302479538.html
- Conveyor raised a $12.5M Series A led by Cervin Ventures, announced July 18, 2024. https://www.conveyor.com/blog/were-proud-to-announce-our-12-5m-million-series-a-funding-for-instant-security-reviews-using-ai
- Company overview: founded 2021, headquartered San Francisco, CA, 51-200 employees. https://leadiq.com/c/conveyor/60e5deb0b27cefd863514c70
- Pros-and-cons summary (via search snippet, direct crawl blocked by DataDome) citing 'Missing Features' as a top con, specifically lack of bulk downloads and unclear Trust Center direction. https://www.g2.com/products/conveyor-conveyor/reviews?qs=pros-and-cons
- Customer-questionnaire response workflow and usage evidence; product claims are not independent performance tests. https://www.conveyor.com/products/security-questionnaire-automation
3 facts on this page we could not establish.
Everything above renders with its evidence state, so a gap is visible rather than quietly filled in. If you work at Conveyor, send us the sources and we will fill them.
Verification is free and always will be. It does not change where Conveyor appears in any list on this site, what our reviews conclude, or which platform we recommend to a buyer. We only accept a correction that comes with a source we can check ourselves, and the source is published in the ledger above alongside the date.