Who each option is best for, and where either supplier is deliberately narrower.
Vendor comparison
Drata vs Secureframe: capability comparison
A side-by-side comparison of Drata and Secureframe across RoPA, DPIA, vendor risk, AI governance and evidence workflows. Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
DrataSecureframeComparison
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 and Secureframe are compared here on public-documentation capability coverage: Drata is publicly documented for 12 of 20 tracked capabilities, Secureframe for 10.
- The clearest difference: Drata adds Data mapping, Privacy risk, which Secureframe doesn't publicly document.
- Drata's public lane is Trust management, security compliance automation, GRC, assurance, continuous monitoring and third-party risk management; Secureframe's public lane is Security compliance automation, trust centre publishing, vendor risk management, continuous monitoring and framework readiness.
- Coverage marks reflect what each vendor publicly documents. Confirm live scope, pricing and export formats with each vendor before deciding.
01Short answer
Drata vs Secureframe
Drata is positioned as: Trust management, security compliance automation, GRC, assurance, continuous monitoring and third-party risk management. Secureframe is positioned as: Security compliance automation, trust centre publishing, vendor risk management, continuous monitoring and framework readiness. On the tracked capabilities Drata and Secureframe overlap across core privacy workflows, so the choice turns less on which features exist and more on operating model, depth and fit.
Drata has broader public-documentation coverage in this comparison (12 of 20 tracked rows, compared with 10 for Secureframe). Capability coverage below reflects what each vendor publicly documents; Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
02At a glance
Drata vs Secureframe at a glance
| Decision question | Drata | Secureframe | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Security, compliance and trust teams that need continuous controls, audit evidence, trust documentation and third-party risk workflows | Security and compliance teams that need automated framework evidence, continuous monitoring, vendor risk and trust-centre 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 | Security compliance automation platform for frameworks, evidence collection, risk, vendors and customer-facing trust posture | 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 Secureframe when security compliance, automated evidence collection and trust-centre readiness are the primary requirement | Choose Acompli when the buyer needs privacy records, approval workflows and Article 30 outputs rather than security-framework evidence |
- Best for: Security, compliance and GRC teams that need SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI or similar audit evidence and customer-facing trust workflows.
- Deployment: Cloud trust-management and compliance automation platform; public materials do not confirm self-hosted deployment.
- Best for: Security and compliance teams that need to get and stay compliant with standards such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA and GDPR.
- Deployment: Cloud compliance automation platform; public materials do not confirm self-hosted deployment.
05Official source signals
What Drata and Secureframe emphasise publicly
This section uses each vendor's own public positioning as the starting point. It is included so customers can see why the two companies may appear in the same shortlist while still solving different problems.
The capability table remains conservative: "Y" means a capability was publicly documented, while "N" means it was not publicly confirmed in the reviewed material.
Drata official product pages
Open the official Drata source used to ground this profile.
ExploreSecureframe official website
Open the official Secureframe source used to ground this profile.
Explore| Signal | Drata | Secureframe |
|---|---|---|
| Public positioning | Drata positions itself as a security and compliance automation platform with continuous control monitoring and trust workflows. | Secureframe positions itself as compliance automation for security, privacy and AI frameworks. |
| Main public signals | 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. | Official pages emphasise automated evidence collection, continuous monitoring, audit readiness and trust centre workflows.; GDPR appears as one compliance framework within a broader security and compliance automation platform.; Secureframe is strongest where the buyer needs SOC 2, ISO and framework evidence more than maintained privacy records. |
| 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 | Security and compliance teams that need to get and stay compliant with standards such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA and GDPR |
| Buyer verification | Ask Drata to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. | Ask Secureframe to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. |
06Sourced 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.
07Sourced 2025-2026 signals
What's new at Secureframe (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.
On March 10, 2026, Secureframe launched "Secureframe Defense," described as an end-to-end AI-powered platform for CMMC (Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification) certification aimed at Defense Industrial Base organizations — a new market lane not covered in the existing profile, which focuses only on SOC 2/ISO 27001/HIPAA/GDPR. The vendor claims it can deploy a CMMC-compliant infrastructure enclave in under 30 minutes and cut certification timelines from a traditional 12-18 months to 4-8 weeks; this is a vendor marketing claim, not independently verified.
Secureframe now publicly lists out-of-the-box support for ISO/IEC 42001 (the AI management system standard) with automated integration tests and real-time nonconformity alerts, extending its AI-governance framework coverage beyond the EU AI Act support already noted in the existing FAQ.
Secureframe's own pricing page (as of mid-2026) now names three specific quote-based packages — Fundamentals, Complete, and Defense (the last tied to the new CMMC product) — with no public list price on any tier, consistent with (not a contradiction of) the existing claim that Secureframe does not publish self-serve pricing. Separately, third-party deal-data aggregator Vendr reports a median real-world annual contract value of $20,000, ranging from roughly $7,733-$32,575/year for smaller deployments up to $55,000-$80,000+/year for large, multi-framework enterprise deployments — a more specific pricing signal than currently in the file.
Secureframe holds a 4.7/5 rating across 804 reviews on G2 (as of mid-2026), a substantially larger independent review sample than the Capterra data already cited in the file (4.8/5 from 58 reviews, essentially unchanged from the 55 previously recorded). Search summaries of G2 feedback indicate the most consistent negative theme is renewal-time price increases when headcount grows or a second compliance framework is added.
08Overlap and gaps
Drata vs Secureframe: what the public data actually shows
Feature count is only a starting point. A customer should separate shared coverage from unique public signals, then test whether the vendor can run the required workflow end to end.
| Decision point | Public signal | Buyer interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Shared evidenced coverage | Vendor risk; AI governance; Policy/notice management; Training module; Approval workflows; Audit trail; Role-based access control; plus 3 more | If your requirement sits here, compare workflow depth, implementation effort, evidence quality and price. |
| Only Drata publicly confirmed | Data mapping; Privacy risk | Keep Drata on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Secureframe whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Only Secureframe publicly confirmed | Secureframe has no unique tracked public capability against Drata in this dataset. | Keep Secureframe on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Drata whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Acompli reference column | DPIA/PIA assessments; RoPA / Article 30; Retention management | Use this as a third reference point where a narrower evidence-first privacy workflow may be preferable to a broader platform. |
09Capability comparison
Drata vs Secureframe: capability by capability
Each row shows Drata and Secureframe marked Y or N based on public documentation, with Acompli shown in the final column for reference.
| Capability | Drata | Secureframe | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPIA/PIA assessments | N | N | Y |
| RoPA / Article 30 | N | N | Y |
| DSAR / privacy rights | N | N | N |
| Data mapping | Y | N | Y |
| Vendor risk | Y | Y | Y |
| Privacy risk | Y | N | Y |
| AI governance | Y | Y | Y |
| Consent management | N | N | N |
| Cookie/tracker scanning | N | N | N |
| Breach/incident management | N | N | N |
| Retention management | N | N | Y |
| Policy/notice management | Y | Y | N |
| Training module | Y | Y | N |
| Approval workflows | Y | Y | Y |
| Audit trail | Y | Y | Y |
| Role-based access control | Y | Y | Y |
| Multi-entity support | Y | Y | Y |
| Spreadsheet import | Y | Y | Y |
| PDF/CSV/Excel export | Y | Y | Y |
| Public pricing | N | N | N |
10Where each is stronger
Drata vs Secureframe: the differences that matter
Most rows are shared between Drata and Secureframe; what separates them is the handful of capabilities only one evidences and the specialist focus each is built around.
- Only Drata (not Secureframe) is evidenced for: Data mapping, Privacy risk.
- Drata: Continuous control monitoring and audit-readiness workflows for security frameworks are Drata's natural lane.
- Drata: Trust centre, security questionnaire and assurance workflows are strong fits for Drata.
- Secureframe: Automated evidence collection and continuous monitoring for security compliance frameworks are stronger fits for Secureframe.
- Secureframe: Vendor risk management is a named Secureframe capability with posture tracking and third-party review workflows.
11Customer due diligence
Questions customers should ask before choosing Drata or Secureframe
A useful comparison should move beyond a product page checklist. Customers should ask each supplier to prove the same live workflow, with the same assumptions, so the difference between platform breadth and usable evidence becomes visible.
Run one real workflow
Ask Drata and Secureframe to process the same example: new activity, assessment, RoPA update, supplier evidence, risk record, review and export.
Check evidence provenance
Confirm whether each important field in Drata and Secureframe has a source, owner, review date and change history, not just a completed form.
Validate exports
Ask both vendors for a regulator-readable export for one legal entity, including controller and processor records where relevant.
Confirm commercial scope
Verify which modules, integrations, service hours, data residency options and support commitments are included in the quoted Drata or Secureframe package.
12Shortlisting notes
Choosing between Drata and Secureframe
Weigh Drata and Secureframe on the workflow you must run end to end - RoPA, DPIA, vendor and risk records - and on how defensibly each one exports what it holds.
- Shortlist Drata when SOC 2, ISO 27001, continuous monitoring, audit readiness and trust operations are the primary requirement.
- Shortlist Secureframe when security compliance, automated evidence collection and trust-centre readiness are the primary requirement.
- Ask Drata and Secureframe to each demonstrate the same workflow end to end: a new processing activity, its assessment, the RoPA update, supplier evidence, the privacy risk and an exportable audit trail.
13Ireland & UK
Drata vs Secureframe: Article 30 records for Irish and UK teams
Both Drata and Secureframe are weighed by Irish and UK privacy teams against the same fixed obligation: a record of processing activities under GDPR Article 30 - a controller record under Article 30(1) and a separate processor record under Article 30(2). In Ireland the Data Protection Commission (DPC) publishes Article 30 guidance; in the UK the ICO sets out what UK GDPR requires.
Whichever of Drata or Secureframe an Irish or UK team weighs, the questions are the same: how deep is the Article 30 record, is EU and UK GDPR distinguished on one register, and can each legal entity produce a self-contained export its own supervisory authority can read?
| Article 30 check | Drata | Secureframe | Why customers care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controller record | Ask Drata to show the Article 30(1) controller fields for one processing activity, including purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. | Ask Secureframe to show the Article 30(1) controller fields for one processing activity, including purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. | A controller record must stand on its own when a regulator or auditor asks for it. |
| Processor record | Ask Drata to show Article 30(2) processor records separately from controller records, scoped to the controller on whose behalf processing is carried out. | Ask Secureframe to show Article 30(2) processor records separately from controller records, scoped to the controller on whose behalf processing is carried out. | Many tools capture controller records more clearly than processor records; customers should verify both. |
| Ireland and UK fit | Ask Drata how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated or tagged for Irish and UK entities. | Ask Secureframe how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated or tagged for Irish and UK entities. | Irish DPC and UK ICO expectations are close, but entity scope, local law references and export format still matter. |
| Standalone export | Ask Drata for a complete export that a legal entity could provide without giving the regulator product access. | Ask Secureframe for a complete export that a legal entity could provide without giving the regulator product access. | A defensible record should be readable outside the platform, with enough context to explain the processing activity. |
- Article 30(1) and 30(2) - does each of Drata and Secureframe model controller and processor records separately, scoped by legal entity?
- EU and UK GDPR - can Drata or Secureframe hold both on one register, mapped to what the DPC and ICO expect?
- Export - does Drata or Secureframe let each legal entity produce a stand-alone record its supervisory authority can read without platform access?
Comparison FAQ
Drata vs Secureframe questions answered
Acompli answers
Acompli: the focused alternative to both
Acompli overlap
Related Acompli workflows
Drata vs Acompli
Compare Drata directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open moduleSecureframe vs Acompli
Compare Secureframe directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open moduleRisk 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 moduleCompare Drata and Secureframe against a real workflow.
Bring one RoPA, DPIA, vendor, risk or AI-governance requirement and map which parts Drata covers, which Secureframe covers, and where each option fits.
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.