Who each option is best for, and where either supplier is deliberately narrower.
Vendor comparison
Proteus-Cyber vs OneTrust: capability comparison
A side-by-side comparison of Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust across RoPA, DPIA, vendor risk, AI governance and evidence workflows. Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
Proteus-CyberOneTrustComparison
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
- Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust are compared here on public-documentation capability coverage: Proteus-Cyber is publicly documented for 19 of 20 tracked capabilities, OneTrust for 19.
- The clearest differences: Proteus-Cyber adds Public pricing; OneTrust adds AI governance.
- Proteus-Cyber's public lane is Broad, highly configurable privacy-operations platform for global compliance (GDPR, CCPA, LGPD, PDPA) spanning assessments, DSAR, breach, vendor risk, consent, cookies and training; OneTrust's public lane is Enterprise privacy, trust, consent, third-party risk, AI governance and GRC suite.
- Capability coverage reflects what each vendor publicly documents; confirm current scope, pricing and exports directly with each vendor.
01Short answer
Proteus-Cyber vs OneTrust
Proteus-Cyber is positioned as: Broad, highly configurable privacy-operations platform for global compliance (GDPR, CCPA, LGPD, PDPA) spanning assessments, DSAR, breach, vendor risk, consent, cookies and training. OneTrust is positioned as: Enterprise privacy, trust, consent, third-party risk, AI governance and GRC suite. Across the tracked capabilities Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust cover much of the same ground, so the decision rests more on operating model, depth and jurisdiction fit than on feature presence.
Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust have the same public-documentation count in this comparison (19 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
Proteus-Cyber vs OneTrust at a glance
| Decision question | Proteus-Cyber | OneTrust | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Teams that want a broad, highly configurable privacy suite with consent, cookie scanning, breach, vendor risk and training across global privacy laws | Large enterprises that need a broad privacy automation and trust platform spanning privacy, consent, third-party risk, AI governance and related programmes | Privacy teams that need a focused operating layer for connected records, evidence packs, human approval and Ireland/UK/EU workflows |
| Operating model | A broad, configurable privacy-operations platform spanning assessments, DSAR, breach, vendor risk, consent, cookie scanning and training | A broad enterprise privacy, trust, consent, third-party-risk and AI-governance suite for global programmes | Connected GDPR and EU AI Act records - RoPA, DPIA, DSAR, risk, vendors, data mapping and AI governance - where one approved assessment feeds every downstream record |
| When to choose it | Choose Proteus-Cyber when configurable breadth, consent and cookie scanning, breach handling, training and multi-standard global coverage match the programme you want to run | Choose OneTrust when enterprise-suite breadth, existing OneTrust investment, partner ecosystem or global programme scale is the primary requirement | Choose Acompli when the main problem is keeping evidence, assessments, RoPA, suppliers and risk decisions connected and defensible after approval |
- Best for: Enterprise and mid-market organisations - especially UK and multinational - that want a single configurable platform covering the full privacy suite (RoPA, DSAR, DPIA, breach, vendor risk, consent, cookie scanning, training) across multiple global privacy laws.
- Deployment: Cloud SaaS platform hosted in the EU with regional controls implemented; three upward-upgradable versions (Schrems II, Express, Enterprise) covering assessments, data mapping/discovery, RoPA, DSAR, risk, vendor risk, breach, consent, cookie scanning, policy templates and training.
- Best for: Large global enterprises with multi-region privacy operations, consent, DSR, vendor, AI risk and regulatory-change programmes.
- Deployment: Enterprise cloud platform positioning; deployment model details should be checked directly with the vendor before making a buying decision.
05Official source signals
What Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust 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.
Proteus-Cyber official product pages
Open the official Proteus-Cyber source used to ground this profile.
ExploreOneTrust official platform pages
Open the official OneTrust source used to ground this profile.
Explore| Signal | Proteus-Cyber | OneTrust |
|---|---|---|
| Public positioning | Proteus-Cyber positions Proteus NextGen Data Privacy as enterprise data privacy management software for global privacy compliance. | OneTrust positions its Trust Intelligence Platform around responsible data and AI use across privacy, consent, third-party management, technology risk and AI governance. |
| Main public signals | Official product pages emphasise PIA/DPIA and TIA assessments, DSAR management, privacy by design, risk assessment, third-party audits, breach notification and data discovery.; The public lane is broad privacy-programme management across multiple global privacy standards.; Proteus-Cyber is best treated as a broad privacy-management suite rather than a narrow Article 30 workflow. | Official navigation groups OneTrust around AI Governance, Consent & Preferences, Data Use Governance, Privacy Automation, Tech Risk & Compliance and Third-Party Management.; The public product lane is broad enterprise trust, data and risk governance rather than a single privacy-record workflow.; Official pages emphasise integrations, pricing packages, services, training and a large enterprise support ecosystem. |
| Best-fit buyer | Enterprise and mid-market organisations - especially UK and multinational - that want a single configurable platform covering the full privacy suite (RoPA, DSAR, DPIA, breach, vendor risk, consent, cookie scanning, training) across multiple global privacy laws | Large global enterprises with multi-region privacy operations, consent, DSR, vendor, AI risk and regulatory-change programmes |
| Buyer verification | Ask Proteus-Cyber to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. | Ask OneTrust 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 Proteus-Cyber (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.
Proteus-Cyber has an independent review signal from independent analyst platform SoftwareReviews (Info-Tech Research Group), which has named Proteus NextGen Data Privacy a 'Data Quadrant Champion' for four consecutive years (2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 — its most recent award, with 11 Top Rated Capabilities and 9 Top Rated Features), and an 'Emotional Footprint Champion' for 2022-2024, based on 35 user reviews with an 8.0/10 composite score, 94% likeliness-to-recommend, 99% plan-to-renew, and 82% satisfaction of cost relative to value. This is a more substantial independent review signal than the existing profile's framing of 'thin' third-party coverage suggests (G2 and Capterra specifically remain thin — 0 and 1 review respectively — but SoftwareReviews/Info-Tech carries an analyst-report-level review base the existing text does not mention).
Proteus-Cyber's current site organizes the platform into a distinct 'NextGen Proactive Protection' solution offering Continuous Control Monitoring (CCM): linking implemented privacy/security controls to existing security technology via API, periodically re-testing those controls, and alerting on control failure so lapses are caught before they cause a breach. This breach-prevention/control-testing capability (also listed as an Enterprise-tier feature alongside 'CMDB threat intelligence integration,' 'Website integrity monitor,' and 'Automatic regulatory exposure mapping' on the product-versions page) is not evidenced or mentioned in the existing repo profile or capability table.
Proteus-Cyber's current site (verified live, footer copyright '2026 Proteus-Cyber Ltd') now markets the platform as eight distinct 'NextGen' solution modules — Privacy, Data Discovery, Vendor Management, Consent, DSAR, Privacy Automation, Proactive Protection, and Privacy Research — each with its own page, rather than presenting purely as one bundled suite. This is a modular go-to-market framing the existing profile (written as one monolithic 'Proteus NextGen Data Privacy' suite) does not reflect.
07Sourced 2025-2026 signals
What's new at OneTrust (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.
OneTrust appointed John Heyman as Chief Executive Officer effective February 9, 2026, succeeding founder Kabir Barday, who moves to a strategic advisory role on the Board of Directors; Doug Owens was also named CFO (announced April 28, 2026). This leadership transition is not reflected in the current profile, which does not mention company leadership at all.
As of late 2025/January 2026, multiple reports (not an official OneTrust announcement) indicate OneTrust is in active discussions with private-equity firms (reportedly including Vista Equity Partners, Thoma Bravo, Blackstone, KKR, and Silver Lake) about a potential sale valued north of USD 10 billion - more than double its last official valuation of USD 4.5 billion (2023). No deal has been officially confirmed by OneTrust in the sources found; this should be treated as reported/rumored market activity, not a confirmed fact.
Independent of the Capterra rating already cited (4.3/5, 55-56 reviews), OneTrust's products are also reviewed on G2: OneTrust Privacy Automation is rated 4.3/5 from roughly 152 reviews and OneTrust Tech Risk & Compliance is rated 4.6/5 from roughly 109 reviews, with recurring reviewer themes of a steep initial setup/configuration learning curve alongside praise for consolidating privacy workflows in one platform.
OneTrust was named a Visionary in Gartner's inaugural 2026 Magic Quadrant for AI Governance Platforms (the first-ever Gartner MQ for this specific market) and was also named a Leader in Gartner's first Magic Quadrant for Third-Party Risk Management Tools for Assurance Leaders (2026). Neither analyst recognition is currently referenced in the profile, which cites only Capterra for third-party validation.
OneTrust has launched new AI-governance capabilities in 2026 beyond what the existing profile lists under 'AI governance': a Privacy Breach Response Agent built with Microsoft Security Copilot (vendor-announced), plus a March 2026 platform expansion adding real-time AI agent detection/inventory across AWS Bedrock, Azure Foundry and Google Vertex, and continuous guardrail-violation monitoring for AI agents, models and data.
OneTrust disclosed a security incident (per its own blog; not independently verified by a regulator) in which unauthorized activity was identified in its Salesforce environment on June 17, 2026, tied to a broader third-party breach of the Klue-Salesforce integration that occurred June 11-12, 2026. OneTrust states its investigation indicates the exposure is isolated to third-party CRM-related data accessible through that integration, and it disabled the Klue Battlecards integration and engaged external forensic specialists. This is not referenced anywhere in the current profile.
08Overlap and gaps
Proteus-Cyber vs OneTrust: 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; Consent management; plus 11 more | If your requirement sits here, compare workflow depth, implementation effort, evidence quality and price. |
| Only Proteus-Cyber publicly confirmed | Public pricing | Keep Proteus-Cyber on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask OneTrust whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Only OneTrust publicly confirmed | AI governance | Keep OneTrust on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Proteus-Cyber 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
Proteus-Cyber vs OneTrust: capability by capability
Each capability is marked Y or N for Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust based on what each vendor publicly documents, with Acompli shown in the final column.
| Capability | Proteus-Cyber | OneTrust | 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 | N | Y | Y |
| Consent management | Y | Y | N |
| Cookie/tracker scanning | Y | Y | N |
| Breach/incident management | Y | Y | N |
| Retention management | Y | 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 | Y | N | N |
10Where each is stronger
Proteus-Cyber vs OneTrust: the differences that matter
On the tracked capabilities, Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust 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 Proteus-Cyber (not OneTrust) is evidenced for: Public pricing.
- Only OneTrust (not Proteus-Cyber) is evidenced for: AI governance.
- Proteus-Cyber: Consent management and cookie scanning as built-in modules.
- Proteus-Cyber: Breach and incident management with a 72-hour countdown timer and regulator-specific output formats (ICO, CNIL, CCPA).
- OneTrust: Enterprise-suite breadth across privacy, consent, third-party risk, AI governance, GRC and regulatory-change management in one platform.
- OneTrust: Consent and preference management plus cookie and tracker scanning.
11Customer due diligence
Questions customers should ask before choosing Proteus-Cyber or OneTrust
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 Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust 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 Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust 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 Proteus-Cyber or OneTrust package.
12Shortlisting notes
Choosing between Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust
Assess Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust against the workflow you actually need to run - RoPA, DPIA, vendor and risk records - and how defensibly each exports its evidence.
- Shortlist Proteus-Cyber when configurable breadth, consent and cookie scanning, breach handling, training and multi-standard global coverage match the programme you want to run.
- Shortlist OneTrust when enterprise-suite breadth, existing OneTrust investment, partner ecosystem or global programme scale is the primary requirement.
- Ask Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust to run one real scenario end to end - a new processing activity, its assessment, the RoPA update, supplier evidence, the privacy risk and an exportable audit trail - rather than a feature-by-feature demo.
13Ireland & UK
Proteus-Cyber vs OneTrust: Article 30 records for Irish and UK teams
Both Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust 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 Proteus-Cyber or OneTrust 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 | Proteus-Cyber | OneTrust | Why customers care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controller record | Ask Proteus-Cyber to show the Article 30(1) controller fields for one processing activity, including purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. | Ask OneTrust 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 Proteus-Cyber to show Article 30(2) processor records separately from controller records, scoped to the controller on whose behalf processing is carried out. | Ask OneTrust 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 Proteus-Cyber how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated or tagged for Irish and UK entities. | Ask OneTrust 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 Proteus-Cyber for a complete export that a legal entity could provide without giving the regulator product access. | Ask OneTrust 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 Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust 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 Proteus-Cyber or OneTrust?
- Export - can Proteus-Cyber or OneTrust let each legal entity produce a self-contained record its own supervisory authority can read?
Comparison FAQ
Proteus-Cyber vs OneTrust questions answered
Acompli answers
Acompli: the focused alternative to both
Acompli overlap
Related Acompli workflows
Proteus-Cyber vs Acompli
Compare Proteus-Cyber directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open moduleOneTrust vs Acompli
Compare OneTrust 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 Proteus-Cyber and OneTrust against a real workflow.
Bring one RoPA, DPIA, vendor, risk or AI-governance requirement and map which parts Proteus-Cyber covers, which OneTrust 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.