Menu
Auditors
Our picks by fit, each with a passed peer review
Every listed firm, filterable by price and timeline
Consultants
Readiness, pentest, vCISO, and ISO 27001 firms in one list
Software
Every platform we profile, with sourced prices and fit
Our picks by buyer fit, with the tradeoffs
Published prices, add-ons, and audit fees
Learn
Articles on cost, controls, timelines, and auditor choice
Free Tools
A few questions, then your best-fit auditors
Fit-ranked platforms with observed price bands
SOC 2 software collects evidence and monitors controls. But which platform fits your team? Compare 25 profiled platforms by buyer fit, auditor workflow, and sourced pricing.
Compare buyer fit, framework coverage, sourced prices, G2 reviews, and limitations.
Featured platforms pay to appear first. Every platform here qualified for this directory before placement; payment cannot add a platform or change its facts. Use the sort controls to reorder.
Engineering-led teams that value inspectable code or the option to self-host
Main limitation: No published rate card, and managed-cloud enterprise controls do not follow from the open-core codebase
Teams seeking SOC 2 automation and device management in one platform
Main limitation: Young compliance module; no advertised native vendor-risk, supplier-assessment, or risk-scoring workflow as of Sept 2026
Teams wanting software and a connected audit process from the same provider
Main limitation: Common ownership may conflict with buyer policy; outside-CPA access and exit rights need written confirmation
Cloud-native SaaS teams on mainstream stacks that value a broad integration catalog
Main limitation: Direct pricing is quote-only, and SCIM may require an add-on
Early- to growth-stage SaaS teams seeking guided first-audit preparation
Main limitation: Limited enterprise access controls and no native data-loss-prevention or DSPM tooling
Enterprise multi-framework compliance tied directly to controls, audit and IT risk
Main limitation: Quote-only enterprise product whose breadth and implementation model can be excessive for a small company pursuing only its first SOC 2
Growth-stage SaaS teams on mainstream stacks that expect to add frameworks over time
Main limitation: Renewal-price growth is a recurring complaint, and native SCIM provisioning is not publicly documented
Growth-stage tech teams managing SOC 2 alongside other frameworks
Main limitation: The published small-team price starts at $15,000 a year before audit and penetration-testing fees
Teams that want expert guidance on named Fundamentals, Complete, or Defense packages
Main limitation: SSO and SCIM require quote-based Complete; Fundamentals starts at a published $7,500/year before scope and services
Companies without compliance expertise seeking software plus hands-on advisory
Main limitation: Build Starter is platform-only; packages that bundle the platform with compliance expert support are available separately.
Established GRC teams running several frameworks and audits at once
Main limitation: Too broad and costly for many small teams pursuing a single first SOC 2 report
Teams reusing evidence across frameworks with visible higher-plan starting prices
Main limitation: Certify price is unlisted; Evidence API is listed on Enterprise; add-ons cost extra
MSSPs, MSPs, and consultancies running multi-client, multi-framework compliance programs
Main limitation: Not built for a single-company SOC 2 buyer prioritizing low cost, deep automation, and self-serve pricing
Security-conscious startups wanting compliance, penetration testing, and light vCISO help together
Main limitation: A narrower published connector catalog; parallel framework rollout needs a live proof
Very early-stage SaaS startups pursuing a fast, lower-cost first SOC 2 report
Main limitation: Requires independent verification of its evidence pipeline and auditor relationships
Early-stage SaaS companies that want hands-on guidance for a first compliance framework
Main limitation: Enterprise administration and fully native, per-framework control sets are not publicly documented
Configurable multi-framework compliance and audit programs that need no-code workflows and evidence reuse
Main limitation: More configurable and implementation-heavy than first-SOC-2 point tools, with quote-only pricing and no publicly established CPA marketplace
Multi-framework security and GRC teams with a dedicated compliance function and an enterprise budget
Main limitation: A poor fit for lean first-SOC-2 startups that need low, predictable pricing
GRC teams handling several frameworks, trust reviews, and security questionnaires together
Main limitation: Website pricing stays quote-only; HubSpot and AWS Marketplace publish scoped SKUs with conflicting employee caps
Large enterprises already using ServiceNow for complex, multi-framework risk and compliance operations
Main limitation: Quote-only, implementation-heavy, and not a dedicated SOC 2 point product or bundled CPA audit
Multi-framework GRC teams or MSSPs that want a shared control library
Main limitation: No public rate card on the vendor site, and observed pricing is high for a self-serve startup tool
Small B2B SaaS teams that want hands-on ownership of a first SOC 2 program
Main limitation: Enterprise administration is not publicly documented, and the vendor is a small, recently founded team
Enterprise GRC teams using AI-assisted evidence testing across several frameworks
Main limitation: Not suited to small first-time buyers needing self-serve onboarding, public pricing, or a CPA marketplace
Existing Certification Automation customers planning export and TRC migration
Main limitation: Certification Automation renewals ended 31 August 2026; remaining customers migrate to TRC
Small SaaS teams wanting a published first-SOC-2 price who will bring their own auditor
Main limitation: Small company, few reviews, US-only; SAML on Scale tier only; no SCIM; extra frameworks priced separately; mapped controls across frameworks
No profiled platform matches those filters together.
Pricing is labeled published, reported, estimated, or not established. Profiles may include a sourced preparation band; it does not shorten a Type 2 observation window. Unknowns remain visible.
Find a shortlist for your first audit, budget, workflow, or next framework. Each answer explains when the selected platforms fit and links to a detailed comparison. For the broader shortlist, read Best SOC 2 Compliance Software by Buyer Fit.
Scytale fits small SaaS teams that need a consultant through their first SOC 2 audit. Consulting comes with Build DFY or Build Stronger; Build Starter is platform-only. Choose Comp AI if a technical founder will implement controls with hosted expert guidance and wants to inspect the automation. Iru fits teams that also want device management and identity in the same platform. Check its startup bundle limits and test the newer compliance workflow with your auditor. Budget separately for the independent CPA examination.
| Scytale | A founder or CTO needs a dedicated consultant alongside the software for a first audit. |
|---|---|
| Comp AI | Technical founders want expert guidance and inspectable automation while implementing controls in-house. |
| Iru | The team wants a first SOC 2 alongside device management and identity in one startup bundle; confirm seat limits and auditor handoff. |
Detailed guide: Best SOC 2 software for startups →
Scytale fits a startup preparing for SOC 2 without in-house compliance expertise: Build DFY includes a consultant for up to six months, and Build Stronger provides 12 months. Build Starter is platform-only. A technical founder who can implement controls could choose Comp AI’s hosted expert guidance instead. Carbide’s Insights plan includes a security advisor, while hands-on implementation requires a Fractional CISO quote. With any of the three, assign an internal owner and arrange the CPA examination separately.
| Scytale | A founder or CTO needs hands-on help through a first SOC 2, or ongoing advisory, alongside the software. |
|---|---|
| Comp AI | A technical founder wants expert guidance and inspectable automation while implementing controls in-house. |
| Carbide | A smaller SaaS team wants an advisor through Insights; hands-on implementation needs a Fractional CISO quote. |
Detailed guide: SOC 2 software for startups without compliance expertise →
ComplyJet, Carbide, and Iru publish SOC 2 software starting prices before a sales call. ComplyJet lists one- and three-year plans. Carbide lists platform tiers, with advisor support starting at Insights. Iru’s published startup bundle combines compliance, device management, and identity within device and user limits; larger packages and extra seats need a quote. Check the contract term, included services, and CPA fees to see what each price buys.
| ComplyJet | A lean first SOC 2 program needs a public platform price. | Published, one-year Core plan from $9,999/yr |
|---|---|---|
| Carbide | Published platform tiers make budgeting easier; advisor support starts at Insights. | Published, $7.5K–$22K/yr |
| Iru | A published startup bundle combines SOC 2 automation, device management, and identity within its device and user limits. | Iru Core for startups from $9K/yr; other scopes by quote |
Detailed guide: SOC 2 software pricing comparison →
Vanta fits teams that want SOC 2 evidence collected across a broad connector catalog. Engineers who want to inspect or self-host the automation should consider Comp AI. Iru combines native device and identity evidence with daily checks for environment and policy changes. In a demo, connect your actual systems and check what each platform collects, how often it runs, and which controls still need manual evidence.
| Vanta | A broad managed connector layer is the main constraint. |
|---|---|
| Comp AI | Engineering-led teams value inspectable or self-hosted automation. |
| Iru | The team wants recurring compliance checks and native device or identity evidence in one platform; confirm source coverage. |
Detailed guide: Compliance automation software for SOC 2 →
Thoropass is the best fit for audit tracking when you want to manage SOC 2 evidence requests, findings, remediation, and the CPA examination together. Its audit-first option lets you keep an existing GRC platform. Choose Vanta to manage auditor requests alongside evidence collected through its connectors, or Secureframe for an auditor workspace with compliance-expert guidance. Before buying, confirm who issues the report, how the auditor gets access, and how you export evidence.
| Thoropass | Audit tracking and the CPA examination should run as one connected process, with an option to keep an existing GRC platform. |
|---|---|
| Vanta | The audit workflow should sit beside a broad connected evidence layer. |
| Secureframe | Guided support and auditor-facing remediation are equally important. |
Detailed guide: SOC 2 audit tracking platforms →
Thoropass is our pick when you want the software and the CPA audit from one provider. Thoropass, Inc. provides the software; affiliated CPA firm Thoropass Assurance performs the examination and issues the report. The software and audit are priced separately. A-LIGN provides A-SCEND only with an A-LIGN audit, not as a standalone platform.
| Thoropass | The software, expert guidance, and CPA examination should share one connected workflow. |
|---|
Detailed guide: End-to-end SOC 2 compliance platforms →
Comp AI fits teams that want to self-host SOC 2 evidence automation. For broader risk, control, and information-security management work, consider CISO Assistant. SimpleRisk focuses on risk management. Comp AI and CISO Assistant are open-core, so check which features require a commercial licence. SimpleRisk Core is open source, with paid modules sold separately. Whichever you choose, your team handles hosting, upgrades, backups, monitoring, and incident response.
| Comp AI | SOC 2 evidence automation and inspectable code are the main job. |
|---|---|
| CISO Assistant | Risk, controls, assessments, privacy, and ISMS work belong together. |
| SimpleRisk | A self-hosted risk-management operating model is the priority. |
Detailed guide: Open-source SOC 2 compliance software →
Comp AI fits teams that want a public trust center and SOC 2 automation they can inspect. Vanta combines public pages with NDA-gated report access. Iru connects compliance evidence, private documents, and questionnaire drafts when you buy those products together. Ask whether the trust center is included in your quote, who approves document requests and drafted answers, and how a buyer receives your SOC 2 report.
| Comp AI | A public trust center should ship with inspectable SOC 2 automation. |
|---|---|
| Vanta | A bundled trust center next to SOC 2 evidence, with public pages and NDA-gated documents. |
| Iru | Compliance evidence, NDA-gated documents, and draft questionnaire answers should stay connected. |
Detailed guide: Trust center software →
Hyperproof fits enterprises using shared controls across SOC 2 and other audits. Consider Anecdotes if an established GRC team needs to manage evidence across frameworks and business units. Drata is an option for managed evidence collection and reuse across frameworks. Have each vendor demonstrate permissions, account provisioning, separation between entities, and audit exports in the plan you would buy. Assign an internal owner for implementation.
| Hyperproof | Shared controls and concurrent audit programs drive the operating model. |
|---|---|
| Anecdotes | A formal GRC function needs one evidence layer across programs. |
| Drata | A managed platform must scale evidence and framework reuse. |
Detailed guide: Enterprise SOC 2 compliance software →
Drata fits growing healthcare SaaS teams combining HIPAA and SOC 2 evidence on a mainstream stack. Choose Thoropass if you want the software and examination managed together; consider Comp AI if your engineers want to inspect the automation. Before uploading protected health information, confirm the vendor’s data restrictions, BAA terms, evidence retention, and contracting entities. Listing HIPAA as a supported framework does not grant permission to store PHI.
| Drata | SOC 2 and HIPAA mappings must grow with a mainstream SaaS stack. |
|---|---|
| Thoropass | The platform and examination workflow need one coordinated path. |
| Comp AI | Engineering-led teams want inspectable evidence automation across the scope. |
Detailed guide: HIPAA compliance software →
Drata fits UK or EU teams that want managed evidence collection across SOC 2 and ISO 27001. Comp AI lets engineers inspect the automation or self-host it. For help implementing controls, consider Scytale’s Build DFY or Build Stronger consulting packages. Check the hosting region, support hours, currency, and frameworks in the contract. A European sales presence does not tell you where your data will be stored.
| Drata | Connector depth and multi-framework evidence reuse carry more weight. |
|---|---|
| Comp AI | European teams value inspectable automation and a self-hosted path. |
| Scytale | Regional support and guided implementation carry more weight. |
Detailed guide: SOC 2 compliance software for UK and EU teams →
Iru fits AI or ML teams adding ISO 42001 to SOC 2 when they also need native device and identity evidence. Consider Comp AI if your engineers want to inspect or self-host the automation; its ISO 42001 support is vendor-claimed, so ask to see the controls. Scytale is an option for guided implementation. In each demo, follow a model change and a supplier-risk review through to the evidence your auditor would receive.
| Iru | A lean team wants ISO 42001 controls with native device and identity evidence; model-governance depth needs a demo. |
|---|---|
| Comp AI | Engineering-led AI teams want inspectable or self-hosted automation; validate the vendor-claimed ISO 42001 control workflow. |
| Scytale | Guided implementation helps translate AI-governance requirements into controls. |
Detailed guide: SOC 2 and ISO 42001 software for AI startups →
Thoropass fits companies combining PCI DSS and SOC 2 when they want the software and assessment coordinated. Vanta offers managed evidence automation while you choose a QSA separately. Comp AI is an option for engineers who want to inspect the automation and use their own assessor; ask to see its PCI workflow before committing. Confirm the assessor’s current PCI SSC listing, assessment scope, and whether the platform uses native or mapped PCI controls.
| Thoropass | The platform and PCI assessment can run through one coordinated path. |
|---|---|
| Vanta | Evidence automation is the priority while the buyer chooses its own QSA. |
| Comp AI | Engineering-led teams want inspectable automation and their own assessor; validate the vendor-claimed PCI workflow. |
Detailed guide: PCI DSS compliance software →
Select the platform you are leaving to open its alternatives guide. Leaving Vanta, start with Iru for SOC 2 automation and device management in one platform, Comp AI for an open-source core with expert-guided SOC 2 support, or Drata as a like-for-like platform for multi-framework programs. Leaving Drata, start with Comp AI for the same open-source core and guided support, Iru for the same device consolidation, or Vanta for a broader connector catalog when one integration is the gap. There is no universal replacement. Before switching, test how you will migrate evidence, which products you need, and what the new contract covers.
The comparisons below cover specific buying questions in more detail. See our buyer-fit picks in Best SOC 2 Compliance Software by Buyer Fit, check named connections in the software integration matrix, and compare dated price observations in the SOC 2 software pricing comparison.
The annual USD prices we found span $5K–$78K/yr. These include published starting prices, scoped marketplace listings, and reported contracts with different terms. Of the 24 currently sold profiles, 18 show no price for a named package on the vendor's site. The groups below use observed entry prices; your contract and independent auditor fee may differ. See the dated bands and sources in our SOC 2 software pricing comparison.
$6.0K – $10.0K/yr
entry price · sourced span $6.0K – $33K/yr
You can read the tiers without talking to a rep, in a category where almost nobody lets you.
$5K – $22K/yr
entry price · sourced span $5K – $70K/yr
Where most first SOC 2 buyers land. Extra frameworks are usually a separate line on the same contract.
$47K/yr
entry price · sourced span $47K – $78K/yr
Multi-year terms and implementation fees are normal. Do not start here for a first audit.
Bands use sourced annual USD price inputs from currently sold profiles. 11 of those profiles have no band because we could not source a comparable annual USD figure.
Auditor fees are always separate. Specialist and boutique CPA firms, which is who most platform buyers end up with, quote roughly $15K–$60K for a Type 2. The full range across all 187 firms in our directory is wider in both directions. See our SOC 2 audit cost guide for the breakdown by firm tier.
Prices and product details in this directory come from sources we name and date on each platform's record: vendor pricing and documentation pages, marketplace listings, third-party procurement data, and independent review platforms. Each record identifies whether a price input is published, reported, estimated, or not established.
We update a record when something meaningful changes, not because a calendar said to.
This catalog is software, not auditors. A listing here means the product can help prepare evidence, policies, questionnaires, or a trust center. It does not mean the vendor can sign a SOC 2.
We group by operating model, not by how AI a product looks. Independent platforms (Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, Sprinto, Comp AI, and similar) are bring-your-own-auditor tools. Prefer vendors that export evidence without a paywall, do not set CPA fees or fieldwork deadlines, and do not sit in on testing. Related software and a signing CPA is a valid path: the vendor and the signing firm are related. Ask the vendor to disclose that relationship and itemize software, readiness, and audit fees. Readiness and DIY tools map evidence for engineering buyers; they do not issue SOC 2 reports and are not in the auditor grid.
The 8 questions that come up on software buying calls: whether it is worth it, whether the audit is included, observation windows, switching mid-audit, price, timeline, single-hub coverage, and the build-versus-buy maths.
It can be worth it when recurring evidence collection, control monitoring, and audit coordination cost more than the subscription and implementation effort. A first audit on a mainstream cloud stack is the clearest case; a small scope, an experienced internal owner, or mostly manual and custom controls can change the maths. Compare software, implementation, add-ons, and the separate audit fee with the work the platform will actually replace.
Usually not. Software prepares you; a licensed CPA firm performs the audit and issues the report. Some vendors sell software and a related signing CPA. That is a valid path; ask for the relationship and the software, readiness, and audit fees to be disclosed clearly. Thoropass is listed here on that path. A-LIGN A-SCEND comes with an A-LIGN audit and is not a standalone platform purchase. Readiness or DIY tools map evidence; they do not issue SOC 2 reports and do not belong in the auditor directory.
No. Readiness time is preparation. It does not shorten a Type 2 observation period, which remains months, not days. AI-written policies and questionnaire answers are management assertions until a CPA tests them. Marketing that promises SOC 2 in days or a 100% pass rate is a flag, not a feature.
You can, but don't. Evidence formats differ and your auditor has already loaded your artifacts into one system. Switch after your current report is issued, before the next observation window starts.
Strike Graph offers a limited free signup (up to 15 evidence attachments) before its paid plans. ComplyJet's Core starts at $9,999/year and Plus at $11,999/year on one-year terms; three-year plans start at $7,999/year and $9,999/year respectively. ComplyJet's Takeoff plan is eligibility-gated with no public price. Strike Graph lists Scale from $21,500/year and Enterprise from $35,000/year; Certify has no listed base price. Secureframe publishes a $7,500/year Fundamentals starting price, while Complete and Defense require a quote. Carbide starts at $7,500. Compare the same framework count, commitment, integrations, support, add-ons, and audit inclusion before calling one cheaper. 18 of the 24 currently sold profiles show no price for a named package on their own site.
Type 1: 4 to 8 weeks of prep plus a 2 to 4 week audit. Type 2: add a 3, 6, or 12-month observation window. Software doesn't shorten the observation window. Nothing does.
Check that the quoted tier covers your evidence sources, manual controls, policy workflow, exceptions, auditor access, exports, retention, trust center, and questionnaire workflow. Identify the legal report issuer and separate audit fee. A platform can centralize program operations, but source systems remain outside it and a licensed CPA firm still performs the examination.
Sometimes. Compare the annual software price, implementation, support, and add-ons with the manual work its integrations can actually replace. A platform is more likely to save money when evidence recurs across several systems or frameworks; a small scope or heavily custom controls can leave much of the work manual. The independent audit fee remains separate.
