PCI DSS compliance software, and who can actually assess you

What SOC 2 evidence actually carries over to PCI DSS

Both frameworks expect the same underlying security practices, so work you have already done is not wasted. Restricted system and physical access, user access reviews, encryption in transit and at rest, endpoint and server hardening, secure development and change management, logging and monitoring, and written information security policies all inform both programs.

What does not carry over is scope, and scope is where second-framework projects actually go wrong. PCI DSS is bounded to the cardholder data environment; SOC 2 covers whatever system you defined. A PCI-scoped vulnerability scan does not satisfy SOC 2, and a SOC 2 access review does not automatically cover the CDE. PCI DSS also demands artifacts SOC 2 has no equivalent for: the SAQ or Report on Compliance, the Attestation of Compliance, and quarterly external scans by an Approved Scanning Vendor.

You will see a "60 percent overlap" figure quoted in this category. We are not repeating it as fact. It traces back to a compliance vendor's own blog, not to the PCI Security Standards Council or any audit-standards body, and we found no independent source that quantifies the overlap at all. The overlap is real and substantial. The number is marketing.

Do you need a QSA, or can you self-assess

Most companies buying compliance software can self-assess. The Self-Assessment Questionnaire is available to merchants below Level 1, which is roughly anything under six million card transactions a year, and to service providers under 300,000 transactions a year. Above those lines you are generally into a Report on Compliance signed by a Qualified Security Assessor.

One thing worth knowing before a vendor tells you otherwise: the PCI Security Standards Council writes the standard and publishes the SAQ instruments, but it does not set your validation level. That is determined by the individual card brands, and only your acquiring bank can assign it. So the honest answer to "which SAQ am I" is that your acquirer decides, and any platform promising certainty before you have asked them is overselling.

Both paths still require quarterly external vulnerability scans by an Approved Scanning Vendor for in-scope internet-facing systems, and both end in an Attestation of Compliance. Software does not remove either.

What PCI DSS costs on top of the platform fee

Platform pricing and assessment pricing are separate budgets, and the second is usually the larger one. The Council publishes no fee schedule for what a QSA charges a client. The only figure it does publish is what assessor firms pay the Council to stay qualified, around $20,000 a year regionally or $40,000 for global coverage, which is a cost to the assessor and not to you.

Client-facing fees are set by the private market and the reported bands are wide. Self-assessment support runs from almost nothing to a few thousand dollars depending on SAQ type and whether a consultant helps. A mid-market QSA engagement is commonly reported in the tens of thousands. A full QSA-led Report on Compliance for a complex cloud environment is reported from around $30,000 into six figures. Treat all of those as secondary-source ranges rather than quotes, because that is what they are.

The practical consequence for platform selection: if you are heading for a ROC, the bundled-assessor option removes a procurement cycle and a second vendor relationship. If you are self-assessing, it buys you nothing and you should pick on evidence automation instead.

What it means when the same vendor sells the software and the assessment

One vendor selling you both the compliance software and the assessment removes a procurement cycle and a handoff, which is worth real money when you are running two frameworks with a small team. It is also a structure worth understanding before you sign, the same way you would with any bundled provider.

The safeguards here are external, not self-declared. Qualified Security Assessor companies are qualified and re-listed by the PCI Security Standards Council itself, and the list is public, so you can check current status before you engage anyone. Thoropass runs its attestation work through Laika Compliance, LLC, a legally separate CPA entity, which passed its most recent AICPA peer review with a rating of pass, accepted 12 December 2025. We read that from the AICPA public file rather than from a vendor page.

The trade that is actually worth weighing is portability, not assessment quality. A bundled engagement is harder to take to a different assessor next year without exporting and re-mapping. Thoropass also sells the other way round: it states its audit platform works with any GRC platform and systems of record, so you can keep the compliance software you already run and engage it purely as the assessor. Price both paths rather than assuming the bundle is the only shape on offer.

We list independent assessors separately from software so the two decisions stay separable, and we are not an assessor ourselves.