Who each option is best for, and where either supplier is deliberately narrower.
Vendor comparison
Drata vs Sprinto: capability comparison
A side-by-side comparison of Drata and Sprinto across RoPA, DPIA, vendor risk, AI governance and evidence workflows. Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
DrataSprintoComparison
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 Sprinto are compared here on public-documentation capability coverage: Drata is publicly documented for 12 of 20 tracked capabilities, Sprinto for 18.
- The clearest difference: Sprinto adds DPIA/PIA assessments, RoPA / Article 30, DSAR / privacy rights, Consent management, Breach/incident management, Retention management, which Drata doesn't publicly document.
- Drata's public lane is Trust management, security compliance automation, GRC, assurance, continuous monitoring and third-party risk management; Sprinto's public lane is Cloud GRC, autonomous trust, compliance automation, continuous monitoring, controls, policies, training and audit readiness.
- Capability coverage reflects what each vendor publicly documents; confirm current scope, pricing and exports directly with each vendor.
01Short answer
Drata vs Sprinto
Drata is positioned as: Trust management, security compliance automation, GRC, assurance, continuous monitoring and third-party risk management. Sprinto is positioned as: Cloud GRC, autonomous trust, compliance automation, continuous monitoring, controls, policies, training and audit readiness. On the tracked capabilities Drata and Sprinto overlap across core privacy workflows, so the choice turns less on which features exist and more on operating model, depth and fit.
Sprinto has broader public-documentation coverage in this comparison (18 of 20 tracked rows, compared with 12 for Drata). Capability coverage below reflects what each vendor publicly documents; Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
02At a glance
Drata vs Sprinto at a glance
| Decision question | Drata | Sprinto | 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 looking for an autonomous trust platform with continuous monitoring, controls, policies and audit evidence | 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 | Cloud GRC and autonomous trust platform for compliance automation, continuous monitoring, controls, policies, training and audits | 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 Sprinto when compliance automation, security trust and unified GRC are the main buying case | 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: Cloud-first and SaaS companies managing SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI, GDPR, vendor risk, controls, policies, training and audit evidence.
- Deployment: Cloud-first GRC/compliance automation platform; public materials do not confirm deployment specifics beyond SaaS-style positioning.
05Official source signals
What Drata and Sprinto 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.
ExploreSprinto official website
Open the official Sprinto source used to ground this profile.
Explore| Signal | Drata | Sprinto |
|---|---|---|
| Public positioning | Drata positions itself as a security and compliance automation platform with continuous control monitoring and trust workflows. | Sprinto positions itself as compliance automation for security frameworks and audit readiness. |
| 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 continuous compliance, automated evidence collection, risk management, vendor risk and trust workflows.; GDPR should be treated as a compliance framework within Sprinto's security-led automation platform.; Sprinto is strongest where the buyer is pursuing SOC 2, ISO 27001 or similar certifications alongside broader compliance controls. |
| 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 | Cloud-first and SaaS companies managing SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI, GDPR, vendor risk, controls, policies, training and audit evidence |
| Buyer verification | Ask Drata to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. | Ask Sprinto 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 Sprinto (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.
Independent buyer-side pricing research (Vendr-sourced deal data, published March 2026) puts Sprinto's median annual contract at $15,000/year (range $11,500-$19,300 across sampled purchases), with entry-level single-framework deals around $8,000-$10,000/year and enterprise multi-framework deals reaching $22,000-$25,000+/year -- somewhat higher than the Starter ~$7,000-$9,000 and Enterprise $15,000+ figures currently cited on the Acompli page, and worth checking against current sourcing since pricing has likely drifted upward.
Sprinto now shows a G2 rating of 4.8/5 from over 1,400 verified reviews (as reported in a 2026 third-party review roundup), which is not currently reflected on the Acompli comparison page -- only a Capterra figure (4.7/5, 86 reviews) is cited there.
On 11 November 2025, Sprinto (vendor announcement) launched "Sprinto AI," including an "AI Playground" no-code agent builder (vendor risk analysis, evidence-gap analysis, and risk-scoring agents) and an "Ask AI" natural-language query assistant, explicitly framed as human-in-the-loop with an ISO 42001 ethical-AI compliance claim and a stated policy of not using customer data for model training. This is a vendor marketing claim about Sprinto's own AI governance posture, not an independently verified audit.
Sprinto's own May 2026 product-update blog describes a more built-out DPIA workflow than the 'DPIA/PIA features listed alongside SOC 2 controls' framing on the Acompli page: configurable DPIA workflows with named owners/approvers, automatic task assignment, a risks tab mapping identified risks directly to the DPIA, a documents tab for supporting evidence, and an AI-generated DPIA summary report once tasks are complete -- plus automated data-mapping that ties discovered systems/data to GDPR requirements. This is a vendor self-description and should be checked against the current comparison page's characterization of Sprinto's DPIA depth.
On 13-14 April 2026, Sprinto announced (via PR Newswire/AAP wire distribution) the launch of a new Australia-based data center for 'localized, audit-ready compliance,' citing regional data residency and low-latency access as the driver, alongside a stated scale of '3,000+ companies across 75 countries' and support for '200+ global standards.' This is a geographic/infrastructure expansion, not an EU/UK jurisdiction change, but is a genuine 2026 company development not currently reflected on the Acompli page.
08Overlap and gaps
Drata vs Sprinto: 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 | Data mapping; Vendor risk; Privacy risk; AI governance; Policy/notice management; Training module; Approval workflows; plus 5 more | If your requirement sits here, compare workflow depth, implementation effort, evidence quality and price. |
| Only Drata publicly confirmed | Drata has no unique tracked public capability against Sprinto in this dataset. | Keep Drata on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Sprinto whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Only Sprinto publicly confirmed | DPIA/PIA assessments; RoPA / Article 30; DSAR / privacy rights; Consent management; Breach/incident management; Retention management | Keep Sprinto on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Drata whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Acompli reference column | No Acompli-only edge against both vendors appears in the tracked rows. | 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 Sprinto: capability by capability
Each capability is marked Y or N for Drata and Sprinto based on what each vendor publicly documents, with Acompli shown in the final column.
| Capability | Drata | Sprinto | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPIA/PIA assessments | N | Y | Y |
| RoPA / Article 30 | N | Y | Y |
| DSAR / privacy rights | N | Y | N |
| Data mapping | Y | Y | Y |
| Vendor risk | Y | Y | Y |
| Privacy risk | Y | Y | Y |
| AI governance | Y | Y | Y |
| Consent management | N | Y | N |
| Cookie/tracker scanning | N | N | N |
| Breach/incident management | N | Y | N |
| Retention management | N | Y | 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 Sprinto: the differences that matter
On the tracked capabilities, Drata and Sprinto overlap on most rows; the differences that matter are the capabilities only one of them evidences, plus the depth and focus each brings to them.
- Only Sprinto (not Drata) is evidenced for: DPIA/PIA assessments, RoPA / Article 30, DSAR / privacy rights, Consent management, Breach/incident management, Retention management.
- 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.
- Sprinto: Continuous monitoring, automated evidence collection and multi-framework compliance are Sprinto strengths.
- Sprinto: Controls, policies, training, security trust and audit-readiness workflows are strong fits for Sprinto.
11Customer due diligence
Questions customers should ask before choosing Drata or Sprinto
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 Sprinto 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 Sprinto 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 Sprinto package.
12Shortlisting notes
Choosing between Drata and Sprinto
Assess Drata and Sprinto against the workflow you actually need to run - RoPA, DPIA, vendor and risk records - and how defensibly each exports its evidence.
- Shortlist Drata when SOC 2, ISO 27001, continuous monitoring, audit readiness and trust operations are the primary requirement.
- Shortlist Sprinto when compliance automation, security trust and unified GRC are the main buying case.
- Ask Drata and Sprinto 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 Sprinto: Article 30 records for Irish and UK teams
Both Drata and Sprinto 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 Sprinto 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 | Sprinto | 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 Sprinto 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 Sprinto 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 Sprinto 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 Sprinto 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 Sprinto model controller and processor records separately, scoped by legal entity?
- DPC (Ireland) and ICO (UK) - is EU and UK GDPR distinguished on one register for Drata or Sprinto?
- Export - can Drata or Sprinto let each legal entity produce a self-contained record its own supervisory authority can read?
Comparison FAQ
Drata vs Sprinto 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 moduleSprinto vs Acompli
Compare Sprinto 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 Sprinto against a real workflow.
Bring one RoPA, DPIA, vendor, risk or AI-governance requirement and map which parts Drata covers, which Sprinto 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.