Who each option is best for, and where either supplier is deliberately narrower.
Competitor profile
Drata vs Acompli: product and service comparison
Drata is profiled first using its public positioning: Trust management, security compliance automation, GRC, assurance, continuous monitoring and third-party risk management. The page then maps product and service coverage against Acompli so buyers can see overlap, gaps and specialist strengths.
Drata alternativeTrust managementGRCVendor risk
Which public claims, review signals, caveats and capability rows are evidenced.
How much work it takes to implement, maintain and export the privacy record.
The questions a privacy team should ask before switching or shortlisting.
On this page
Key takeaways
- Drata public market lane: Trust management, security compliance automation, GRC, assurance, continuous monitoring and third-party risk management.
- Drata best-fit buyer: Security, compliance and GRC teams that need SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI or similar audit evidence and customer-facing trust workflows.
- Drata published strengths include continuous control monitoring and audit-readiness workflows for security frameworks are Drata's natural lane.
- The capability rows use public-documentation signals: "Y" means publicly documented, and "N" means not publicly confirmed.
01Drata profile
What Drata provides
Drata describes itself as an agentic trust management platform. Public product pages position it around continuous compliance, unified GRC and assurance, third-party risk management, trust documentation and security questionnaires.
Drata does not publish list pricing. Third-party data (Vendr, Costbench, June 2026): entry ~USD 7,500-USD 15,000/year (1 framework, under 50 employees); median paid ~USD 25,000/year; enterprise USD 25,000-USD 100,000+/year. Year-1 all-in including audit and implementation is estimated at USD 50,000-USD 120,000.
| Signal | Details |
|---|---|
| Market lane | Trust management, security compliance automation, GRC, assurance, continuous monitoring and third-party risk management. |
| Best-fit buyer | Security, compliance and GRC teams that need SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI or similar audit evidence and customer-facing trust workflows. |
| Ratings / pricing signal | Capterra directory data shows 4.8/5 from 5 reviews and contact-vendor pricing. Verify current ratings and pricing directly before relying on them. |
| Deployment / operating model | Cloud trust-management and compliance automation platform; public materials do not confirm self-hosted deployment. |
02Official website signals
What Drata emphasises on its own website
Drata positions itself as a security and compliance automation platform with continuous control monitoring and trust workflows.
- Official pages emphasise automated evidence collection, continuous monitoring, compliance frameworks and audit readiness.
- The product lane includes risk management, vendor management and trust centre workflows for security-led compliance teams.
- GDPR should be evaluated as a framework within a security-compliance platform, not as a dedicated privacy-record system.
03Published strengths
Drata products, services and stated strengths
A fair comparison should not treat Drata as weak because it is not privacy-first. It solves a broader security, compliance and trust problem.
- Continuous control monitoring and audit-readiness workflows for security frameworks are Drata's natural lane.
- Trust centre, security questionnaire and assurance workflows are stronger fits for Drata than for Acompli.
- Drata has dedicated third-party risk management workflows for vendor intake, evidence, criteria, decisions and follow-up.
- Drata may be the better platform where the buyer needs a security-led GRC system of record, not a privacy-specific Article 30 record.
04Sourced 2025-2026 signals
What's new at Drata (2025-2026, sourced)
These sourced updates were researched on 2026-07-05 and are listed separately from the live comparison table so existing profile claims remain unchanged.
Drata announced on its own blog (dated December 2, 2025) that it has achieved ISO 42001 (AI Management System) certification, stating this was reached less than two years after the standard's December 2023 publication and that its existing SOC 2/ISO 27001/privacy work already covered roughly 35-40% of the requirements. This is a vendor-published claim; the underlying certification would normally be issued by an accredited third-party certification body, but no independent auditor confirmation was found in this search.
Drata's blog (dated June 10, 2026) introduced a new 'AI Agent Governance' capability set - Drata Sensor (agent discovery/inventory), Mission Control (real-time policy enforcement on agent actions), Trust Ladder (staged rollout through Training/Recommendation/Active stages), Drift Detection, and Chain of Custody (tamper-evident audit logs) - aimed specifically at governing autonomous AI agents rather than AI tools generally. This is more granular than the existing capability table's generic 'AI governance: Y' entry for Drata. It is a vendor product announcement, not yet reviewed independently.
G2 shows Drata at 4.8/5 across roughly 1,100+ reviews as of Q2 2026 (one search result specifically cited 1,153 reviews), a materially larger independent review sample than the Capterra figure already cited in the existing profile (4.8/5 from 5-6 reviews). Recurring positive themes in G2 reviews are customer-success responsiveness and compliance-dashboard visibility; recurring criticism is renewal price increases and reduced automation coverage for non-standard or on-prem infrastructure.
Secondary-market data aggregator TrueUp reports Drata's most recent secondary valuation at approximately $1.2 billion as of June 16, 2026, described as roughly a 40% decline from its $2 billion Series C valuation set in December 2022. CB Insights and PitchBook independently corroborate the $1.8-2.0 billion December 2022 baseline but were not accessible to confirm the 2026 secondary figure directly. This is unconfirmed by any Drata press statement, reflects private secondary-market pricing rather than a primary funding round, and should be treated as a market signal rather than a confirmed current company valuation.
05Comparison context
Drata alternatives for privacy and GDPR
Drata is publicly positioned in this market lane: Trust management, security compliance automation, GRC, assurance, continuous monitoring and third-party risk management.
This page profiles Drata's stated product and service coverage, best-fit buyer, rating and pricing signals, and published strengths before comparing where Acompli overlaps.
"Y" means publicly documented, while "N" means not publicly confirmed rather than proof that a supplier cannot provide it.
06At a glance
Drata vs Acompli at a glance
This page profiles Drata first, then compares public product and service coverage so buyers can decide what fits their own requirement.
| Decision question | Drata | Acompli |
|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Security, compliance and trust teams that need continuous controls, audit evidence, trust documentation and third-party risk workflows. | Privacy teams that need GDPR and AI-governance records with source evidence, reviewer decisions and regulator-ready exports. |
| Operating model | Trust management and GRC platform for continuous compliance, risk, assurance, vendor reviews, questionnaires and trust centre operations. | Privacy operations platform across RoPA, DPIA, DSAR, risk, vendors, data mapping, AI governance and evidence packs. |
| When to choose it | Choose Drata when SOC 2, ISO 27001, continuous monitoring, audit readiness and trust operations are the primary requirement. | Choose Acompli when the buyer needs privacy records, approval workflows and Article 30 outputs rather than security-framework evidence. |
07Capability comparison
Drata product and service coverage compared with Acompli
Y means a meaningful product, module, feature or service was publicly documented at the time of writing.
| Capability | Drata | Acompli |
|---|---|---|
| DPIA/PIA assessments | N | Y |
| RoPA / Article 30 | N | Y |
| DSAR / privacy rights | N | N |
| Data mapping | Y | Y |
| Vendor risk | Y | Y |
| Privacy risk | Y | Y |
| AI governance | Y | Y |
| Consent management | N | N |
| Cookie/tracker scanning | N | N |
| Breach/incident management | N | N |
| Retention management | N | Y |
| Policy/notice management | Y | N |
| Training module | Y | N |
| Approval workflows | Y | Y |
| Audit trail | Y | Y |
| Role-based access control | Y | Y |
| Multi-entity support | Y | Y |
| Spreadsheet import | Y | Y |
| PDF/CSV/Excel export | Y | Y |
| Public pricing | N | N |
08Ireland & UK
Drata vs Acompli for RoPA in Ireland and the UK
Security compliance evidence can support a privacy programme, but GDPR Article 30 requires a maintained record of processing activities. Irish and UK teams need controller and processor records, purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and safeguards that can be explained to the DPC or ICO.
For both Drata and Acompli, buyers should ask to see entity-scoped exports, reviewer history, source evidence and how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated in practice.
- EU GDPR Article 30(1) and Article 30(2) controller and processor records.
- UK GDPR Article 30 documentation and ICO guidance fit.
- Irish DPC accountability expectations and exportable evidence for each legal entity.
09Shortlisting notes
When Drata belongs on the shortlist
Drata should remain on the shortlist when its published market lane, product strengths and buyer fit match the requirement.
Acompli should be evaluated only where its own workflow coverage matches the requirement; this page is intended to show overlap and gaps, not to force a universal replacement narrative.
- Shortlist Drata when SOC 2, ISO 27001, continuous monitoring, audit readiness and trust operations are the primary requirement.
- Shortlist Acompli when the buyer needs privacy records, approval workflows and Article 30 outputs rather than security-framework evidence.
- Ask each supplier to demonstrate the same workflow using current product screens, exports, review history and implementation assumptions.
Comparison FAQ
Drata questions answered
Acompli answers
Acompli as a Drata alternative
Acompli overlap
Related Acompli workflows
Risk management
Extract candidate risks from approved evidence, assign treatment plans and report on current exposure.
Open moduleThird-party risk
Record suppliers and processors once, then reference them across assessments, RoPA, risk and data mapping.
Open moduleRoPA management
Maintain Article 30 records that stay linked to approved assessments, systems, suppliers and transfers.
Open moduleAssessments
Run DPIAs, LIAs, TIAs, processor reviews and AI Act assessments with templates, AI support and human approval.
Open moduleCompare Drata and Acompli against a real workflow.
Bring one RoPA, DPIA, vendor, risk or AI-governance requirement and map which parts are covered by Drata, which parts Acompli covers, and where another specialist may still be needed.
Acompli architecture
One governed foundation. Five connected modules.
Imported systems, suppliers, policies, DPIAs and RoPA spreadsheets become the shared evidence model for assessments, risk, records, third-party oversight and data mapping.
- OnboardingImport DPIAs, RoPA spreadsheets, suppliers, systems, policies and documents.
- AssessmentsRun DPIAs, LIAs, TIAs, processor reviews and AI Act assessments with human approval.
- RiskExtract candidate risks from approved evidence and assign treatment plans.
- RoPAMaintain Article 30 records linked to assessments, systems, suppliers and transfers.
- Third-PartyRecord suppliers once, then reference them across assessments, RoPA, risk and maps.
- Data MappingBuild a living view of systems, suppliers, locations, categories and transfers.
Point tools create records. Acompli connects them.