Who each option is best for, and where either supplier is deliberately narrower.
Vendor comparison
Osano vs Securiti: capability comparison
A side-by-side comparison of Osano and Securiti across RoPA, DPIA, vendor risk, AI governance and evidence workflows. Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
OsanoSecuritiComparison
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
- Osano and Securiti are compared here on public-documentation capability coverage: Osano is publicly documented for 17 of 20 tracked capabilities, Securiti for 17.
- The clearest differences: Osano adds Spreadsheet import, Public pricing; Securiti adds Breach/incident management, Retention management.
- Osano's public lane is All-in-one privacy management, cookie consent, consent preferences, subject rights, data mapping, vendor privacy and assessments; Securiti's public lane is Enterprise DataAI command platform: DSPM, data discovery, data security, privacy automation, consent, breach, data governance and AI security.
- Capability coverage reflects what each vendor publicly documents; confirm current scope, pricing and exports directly with each vendor.
01Short answer
Osano vs Securiti
Osano is positioned as: All-in-one privacy management, cookie consent, consent preferences, subject rights, data mapping, vendor privacy and assessments. Securiti is positioned as: Enterprise DataAI command platform: DSPM, data discovery, data security, privacy automation, consent, breach, data governance and AI security. Osano and Securiti overlap on most tracked capabilities, so buyers usually decide on depth, operating model and how defensibly each exports rather than on a feature checklist.
Osano and Securiti have the same public-documentation count in this comparison (17 of 20 tracked rows each). Capability coverage below reflects what each vendor publicly documents; Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
02At a glance
Osano vs Securiti at a glance
| Decision question | Osano | Securiti | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Privacy teams that need an all-in-one data privacy platform with consent, subject rights, data mapping, vendor privacy, assessments and privacy templates | Large enterprises that need data discovery, classification, security posture, AI security, privacy automation, consent and breach workflows at scale | DPO-led privacy teams that need connected GDPR and AI-governance records with human review, source evidence and regulator-ready exports |
| Operating model | Unified privacy management platform spanning cookie consent, consent and preferences, subject rights, data mapping, vendor privacy, assessments and TrustHub | DataAI command platform combining DSPM, data discovery, data governance, privacy automation, consent, breach and AI security | Evidence-led privacy operations across RoPA, DPIA, DSAR, risk, vendors, data mapping, AI governance and code scan |
| When to choose it | Choose Osano when cookie consent, preferences, subject rights and vendor privacy scoring are central to the programme | Choose Securiti when data security, discovery, consent, breach and AI controls are part of the same enterprise requirement | Choose Acompli when Article 30 continuity, evidence provenance, human approval and Ireland/UK governance depth matter more than consent operations |
- Best for: Privacy, legal and marketing teams that need consent operations plus a broad privacy programme platform across many global privacy laws.
- Deployment: SaaS privacy platform with website consent deployment, privacy programme modules and product documentation for implementation.
- Best for: Large data, security, privacy and governance teams that need one platform to discover, classify, govern and secure data and AI across complex environments.
- Deployment: Enterprise SaaS/data platform with integrations across cloud, SaaS and data systems; exact deployment architecture and packaging should be verified with Securiti.
05Official source signals
What Osano and Securiti 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.
Osano official product pages
Open the official Osano source used to ground this profile.
ExploreSecuriti official platform pages
Open the official Securiti source used to ground this profile.
Explore| Signal | Osano | Securiti |
|---|---|---|
| Public positioning | Osano positions itself as a data privacy platform with consent, privacy rights, assessments and vendor-risk workflows. | Securiti positions its Data Command Center around privacy, security, governance and AI across enterprise data estates. |
| Main public signals | Official product positioning centres on consent management, subject rights, vendor privacy risk and privacy assessments.; Osano is strongest where consent and preference operations sit beside broader privacy programme management.; For Article 30 comparison, buyers should verify how Osano's assessment and data-mapping outputs become regulator-ready RoPA evidence. | Official pages emphasise PrivacyOps, data discovery, data security, data governance and AI governance.; The product lane is broad enterprise data command and automation, with privacy rights and consent as part of a wider platform.; Securiti is strongest where privacy work depends on large-scale data discovery and enterprise data controls. |
| Best-fit buyer | Privacy, legal and marketing teams that need consent operations plus a broad privacy programme platform across many global privacy laws | Large data, security, privacy and governance teams that need one platform to discover, classify, govern and secure data and AI across complex environments |
| Buyer verification | Ask Osano to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. | Ask Securiti 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 Osano (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.
Osano announced a leadership transition on 14 July 2025: Bobby Jaffari (previously the executive who led Freshworks' North American launch and scale-up to a $10B valuation and IPO) became CEO, while co-founder Arlo Gilbert moved into a newly created Chief Innovation Officer role rather than leaving the company.
Osano publishes a dedicated page of structured facts written explicitly for AI assistants/LLMs (osano.com/ai-information), instructing them how to describe the company, its differentiators (e.g. the fines guarantee, B Corp status), certifications and usage stats -- an overt, competing example of AI-answer-shaping content in the same space Acompli is building for.
Osano markets a 'No Fines, No Penalties' guarantee -- a vendor pledge, not an independent audit or certification -- to cover up to $500,000 in regulatory fines or penalties caused by a documented platform failure. It is restricted to paying customers on Osano's higher-tier plans (named 'Start, Trust, or Scale' on the guarantee's terms page), requires full documented implementation with no unapproved configuration changes, and obligates the customer to notify Osano within 24 hours of any regulator contact.
Osano, Inc. (a Public Benefit Corporation) is listed on B Lab's public registry as a Certified B Corporation with a stated B Impact score of 89.8; Osano describes itself as the first data privacy platform to hold this status. This is a corporate-responsibility certification, independently verifiable via B Lab, distinct from the SOC 2 status already recorded in the profile.
Osano is a Google Certified Consent Management Platform partner supporting Google Consent Mode v2, and Google's own Analytics support documentation lists Osano as a setup option for obtaining Consent Mode signals -- relevant to EEA/UK publishers using Google AdSense, Ad Manager or AdMob, which require a Google-certified CMP. This is independently corroborated by Google, not only by Osano's own marketing.
Osano acquired enterprise privacy-program vendor WireWheel, with the deal completing 5 December 2023 (undisclosed amount). Both companies said the acquisition added enterprise-grade privacy-assessment, data-mapping and reporting capability aimed at larger enterprise buyers. This predates the 2025-2026 window but is not reflected anywhere in the current profile and provides context for the depth of Osano's Assessments and Data Mapping modules.
07Sourced 2025-2026 signals
What's new at Securiti (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.
Veeam completed its acquisition of Securiti AI on December 11, 2025 for approximately $1.725 billion; Securiti founder and CEO Rehan Jalil moved into a new role as Veeam's President of Security and AI, and roughly 600 Securiti employees joined Veeam. This gives harder, dated specifics than the existing FAQ's more general acquisition framing.
In February 2026, Veeam launched 'Agent Commander,' described as the first product resulting from the Securiti acquisition, aimed at detecting AI agent risk, protecting AI systems, and rolling back AI mistakes -- an early, concrete signal of post-acquisition product integration (as opposed to the 'roadmap uncertain' framing implied by the existing FAQ).
Securiti's own Security & Compliance page states the platform itself (not just underlying cloud infrastructure) holds SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001:2022, and ISO 27701:2019 certifications. This is a vendor-stated fact not currently mentioned anywhere in the existing profile or capability table.
On G2, Securiti carries a 4.7-out-of-5 rating from 92 reviews, with users citing ease of use and responsive support as strengths, and (independently) a steep learning curve for new features and UI/scaling friction during large enterprise rollouts (e.g. manual per-connector setup for bulk cloud-data onboarding) as limitations. This corroborates, with a specific rating and review count, the existing FAQ's unsourced claim of a 'steep learning curve.'
Securiti markets a distinct product, Gencore AI (launched October 2024, still actively promoted including at NVIDIA GTC 2025), for building enterprise GenAI systems, copilots and AI agents on top of Securiti's Data+AI Command Center and Knowledge Graph, with NVIDIA NIM microservice integration. This is an AI-system-building/enablement capability, not just AI governance/monitoring, and is not distinguished from the generic 'AI governance' row in the existing capability table.
08Overlap and gaps
Osano vs Securiti: 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 | DPIA/PIA assessments; RoPA / Article 30; DSAR / privacy rights; Data mapping; Vendor risk; Privacy risk; AI governance; plus 8 more | If your requirement sits here, compare workflow depth, implementation effort, evidence quality and price. |
| Only Osano publicly confirmed | Spreadsheet import; Public pricing | Keep Osano on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Securiti whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Only Securiti publicly confirmed | Breach/incident management; Retention management | Keep Securiti on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Osano 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
Osano vs Securiti: capability by capability
Each capability is marked Y or N for Osano and Securiti based on what each vendor publicly documents, with Acompli shown in the final column.
| Capability | Osano | Securiti | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPIA/PIA assessments | Y | Y | Y |
| RoPA / Article 30 | Y | Y | Y |
| DSAR / privacy rights | Y | Y | N |
| Data mapping | Y | Y | Y |
| Vendor risk | Y | Y | Y |
| Privacy risk | Y | Y | Y |
| AI governance | Y | Y | Y |
| Consent management | Y | Y | N |
| Cookie/tracker scanning | Y | Y | N |
| Breach/incident management | N | Y | N |
| Retention management | N | Y | Y |
| Policy/notice management | Y | Y | N |
| Training module | N | N | 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 | N | Y |
| PDF/CSV/Excel export | Y | Y | Y |
| Public pricing | Y | N | N |
10Where each is stronger
Osano vs Securiti: the differences that matter
On the tracked capabilities, Osano and Securiti 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 Osano (not Securiti) is evidenced for: Spreadsheet import, Public pricing.
- Only Securiti (not Osano) is evidenced for: Breach/incident management, Retention management.
- Osano: Cookie Consent and Unified Consent & Preference Hub.
- Osano: Vendor Privacy Risk Management, including vendor privacy scoring and monitoring language.
- Securiti: Data discovery, classification and DSPM across hybrid multicloud and SaaS environments.
- Securiti: AI security and governance controls, including AI risk, agent security and data controls for AI adoption.
11Customer due diligence
Questions customers should ask before choosing Osano or Securiti
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 Osano and Securiti 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 Osano and Securiti 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 Osano or Securiti package.
12Shortlisting notes
Choosing between Osano and Securiti
Assess Osano and Securiti against the workflow you actually need to run - RoPA, DPIA, vendor and risk records - and how defensibly each exports its evidence.
- Shortlist Osano when cookie consent, preferences, subject rights and vendor privacy scoring are central to the programme.
- Shortlist Securiti when data security, discovery, consent, breach and AI controls are part of the same enterprise requirement.
- Put the same case to Osano and Securiti: take one processing activity through its assessment, the RoPA update, supplier evidence, the privacy risk and a defensible export, and watch where each needs manual work.
13Ireland & UK
Osano vs Securiti: Article 30 records for Irish and UK teams
Both Osano and Securiti 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 Osano or Securiti 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 | Osano | Securiti | Why customers care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controller record | Ask Osano to show the Article 30(1) controller fields for one processing activity, including purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. | Ask Securiti 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 Osano to show Article 30(2) processor records separately from controller records, scoped to the controller on whose behalf processing is carried out. | Ask Securiti 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 Osano how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated or tagged for Irish and UK entities. | Ask Securiti 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 Osano for a complete export that a legal entity could provide without giving the regulator product access. | Ask Securiti 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 Osano and Securiti 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 Osano or Securiti?
- Export - can Osano or Securiti let each legal entity produce a self-contained record its own supervisory authority can read?
Comparison FAQ
Osano vs Securiti questions answered
Acompli answers
Acompli: the focused alternative to both
Acompli overlap
Related Acompli workflows
Osano vs Acompli
Compare Osano directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open moduleSecuriti vs Acompli
Compare Securiti directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open moduleAssessments
Run DPIAs, LIAs, TIAs, processor reviews and AI Act assessments with templates, AI support and human approval.
Open moduleRoPA management
Maintain Article 30 records that stay linked to approved assessments, systems, suppliers and transfers.
Open moduleCompare Osano and Securiti against a real workflow.
Bring one RoPA, DPIA, vendor, risk or AI-governance requirement and map which parts Osano covers, which Securiti 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.