Who each option is best for, and where either supplier is deliberately narrower.
Vendor comparison
Secureframe vs Vanta: capability comparison
A side-by-side comparison of Secureframe and Vanta across RoPA, DPIA, vendor risk, AI governance and evidence workflows. Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
SecureframeVantaComparison
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
- Secureframe and Vanta are compared here on public-documentation capability coverage: Secureframe is publicly documented for 10 of 20 tracked capabilities, Vanta for 14.
- The clearest difference: Vanta adds DPIA/PIA assessments, RoPA / Article 30, Data mapping, Privacy risk, which Secureframe doesn't publicly document.
- Secureframe's public lane is Security compliance automation, trust centre publishing, vendor risk management, continuous monitoring and framework readiness; Vanta's public lane is Trust, security, compliance and GRC automation.
- Capability coverage reflects what each vendor publicly documents; confirm current scope, pricing and exports directly with each vendor.
01Short answer
Secureframe vs Vanta
Secureframe is positioned as: Security compliance automation, trust centre publishing, vendor risk management, continuous monitoring and framework readiness. Vanta is positioned as: Trust, security, compliance and GRC automation. Secureframe and Vanta overlap on most tracked capabilities, so buyers usually decide on depth, operating model and how defensibly each exports rather than on a feature checklist.
Vanta has broader public-documentation coverage in this comparison (14 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
Secureframe vs Vanta at a glance
| Decision question | Secureframe | Vanta | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Security and compliance teams that need automated framework evidence, continuous monitoring, vendor risk and trust-centre workflows | Security-led teams that want automated compliance, continuous GRC, audit evidence, trust centre workflows and security/privacy framework coverage | Privacy teams that need GDPR and AI-governance records with source evidence, reviewer decisions and regulator-ready exports |
| Operating model | Security compliance automation platform for frameworks, evidence collection, risk, vendors and customer-facing trust posture | A trust-management platform for automated security and compliance (SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI), with privacy-management features for RoPA and assessments | Privacy operations platform across RoPA, DPIA, DSAR, risk, vendors, data mapping, AI governance and evidence packs |
| When to choose it | Choose Secureframe when security compliance, automated evidence collection and trust-centre readiness are the primary requirement | Choose Vanta when security compliance, SOC 2 or ISO evidence, GRC and trust operations are the centre of the buying case | Choose Acompli when the buyer needs privacy records, approval workflows and Article 30 outputs rather than framework evidence |
- 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.
- Best for: Cloud-first companies that need SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI, GDPR, vendor risk and audit evidence automation.
- Deployment: Cloud-first compliance automation platform; public materials do not confirm a self-hosted or on-prem option.
05Official source signals
What Secureframe and Vanta 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.
Secureframe official website
Open the official Secureframe source used to ground this profile.
ExploreVanta official website
Open the official Vanta source used to ground this profile.
Explore| Signal | Secureframe | Vanta |
|---|---|---|
| Public positioning | Secureframe positions itself as compliance automation for security, privacy and AI frameworks. | Vanta positions itself around trust management, security compliance automation, continuous monitoring and framework readiness. |
| Main public signals | 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. | Official pages emphasise automated evidence collection, continuous control monitoring, trust centre workflows and audit readiness.; Vanta's buyer lane is security-led compliance across frameworks such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI and GDPR.; Privacy comparison should treat Vanta's privacy features as part of a trust-management platform, not as a dedicated GDPR record system. |
| Best-fit buyer | Security and compliance teams that need to get and stay compliant with standards such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA and GDPR | Cloud-first companies that need SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI, GDPR, vendor risk and audit evidence automation |
| Buyer verification | Ask Secureframe to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. | Ask Vanta 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 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.
07Sourced 2025-2026 signals
What's new at Vanta (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.
Vanta raised a $150M Series D in July 2025 led by Wellington Management at a $4.15B valuation (up from $2.45B a year earlier), with estimated ARR of about $220M (up from $100M in January 2024), serving over 12,000 customers with 1,000+ employees. This is a vendor/press-reported figure, not independently audited.
Alongside the Series D, Vanta made its first disclosed acquisition, buying Israel-based startup Riskey (undisclosed sum, July 2025) to add AI-driven continuous risk-monitoring capability, as CEO Christina Cacioppo signalled a push toward becoming a multi-product platform.
Vanta introduced an 'Agentic Trust Platform' (marketed as AI Agent 2.0) in late 2025/early 2026, adding autonomous policy drafting mapped to control gaps, AI-generated responses to inbound security questionnaires, automated vendor-risk evidence collection/scoring, and a 'Risk Graph' that visualises control dependencies -- a substantive product expansion beyond the automated-evidence-collection description currently on file.
Gartner Peer Insights lists Vanta at 4.4/5 from 278 reviews -- an independent review source not currently cited on the comparison page (which cites only Capterra and G2).
G2's own review page currently shows Vanta at 4.6/5 from about 2,424 reviews (Q2 2026) -- essentially unchanged from the 2,458-review figure already on file -- and G2 lists Vanta among its 2026 Best Software Awards winners in the Governance, Risk & Compliance category (a vendor-reported claim of '#1 in Security Compliance for 14 consecutive quarters through Spring 2026' should be treated as Vanta-sourced pending direct G2 confirmation).
In May-June 2025, Vanta disclosed (and published its own root-cause analysis for) a product code-change bug that exposed a subset of customer data -- employee names/roles and security-tool configuration metadata (not credentials, financial or health data) -- across tenants, affecting under 4% of its then ~10,000+ customers; the issue was found May 26 and remediated by June 4, 2025. This is factual, dated context relevant to a platform whose core positioning is 'trust management,' not currently reflected anywhere in the comparison page.
08Overlap and gaps
Secureframe vs Vanta: 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 Secureframe publicly confirmed | Secureframe has no unique tracked public capability against Vanta in this dataset. | Keep Secureframe on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Vanta whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Only Vanta publicly confirmed | DPIA/PIA assessments; RoPA / Article 30; Data mapping; Privacy risk | Keep Vanta on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Secureframe whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Acompli reference column | 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
Secureframe vs Vanta: capability by capability
Each capability is marked Y or N for Secureframe and Vanta based on what each vendor publicly documents, with Acompli shown in the final column.
| Capability | Secureframe | Vanta | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPIA/PIA assessments | N | Y | Y |
| RoPA / Article 30 | N | Y | Y |
| DSAR / privacy rights | N | N | N |
| Data mapping | N | Y | Y |
| Vendor risk | Y | Y | Y |
| Privacy risk | N | Y | 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
Secureframe vs Vanta: the differences that matter
On the tracked capabilities, Secureframe and Vanta 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 Vanta (not Secureframe) is evidenced for: DPIA/PIA assessments, RoPA / Article 30, Data mapping, Privacy risk.
- 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.
- Vanta: Automated security-framework compliance - SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI - with continuous control monitoring and evidence collection.
- Vanta: A trust centre and a large integration and automation network for security and GRC evidence.
11Customer due diligence
Questions customers should ask before choosing Secureframe or Vanta
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 Secureframe and Vanta 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 Secureframe and Vanta 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 Secureframe or Vanta package.
12Shortlisting notes
Choosing between Secureframe and Vanta
Assess Secureframe and Vanta against the workflow you actually need to run - RoPA, DPIA, vendor and risk records - and how defensibly each exports its evidence.
- Shortlist Secureframe when security compliance, automated evidence collection and trust-centre readiness are the primary requirement.
- Shortlist Vanta when security compliance, SOC 2 or ISO evidence, GRC and trust operations are the centre of the buying case.
- Put the same case to Secureframe and Vanta: 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
Secureframe vs Vanta: Article 30 records for Irish and UK teams
Both Secureframe and Vanta 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 Secureframe or Vanta 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 | Secureframe | Vanta | Why customers care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controller record | Ask Secureframe to show the Article 30(1) controller fields for one processing activity, including purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. | Ask Vanta 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 Secureframe to show Article 30(2) processor records separately from controller records, scoped to the controller on whose behalf processing is carried out. | Ask Vanta 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 Secureframe how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated or tagged for Irish and UK entities. | Ask Vanta 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 Secureframe for a complete export that a legal entity could provide without giving the regulator product access. | Ask Vanta 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 Secureframe and Vanta 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 Secureframe or Vanta?
- Export - can Secureframe or Vanta let each legal entity produce a self-contained record its own supervisory authority can read?
Comparison FAQ
Secureframe vs Vanta questions answered
Acompli answers
Acompli: the focused alternative to both
Acompli overlap
Related Acompli workflows
Secureframe vs Acompli
Compare Secureframe directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open moduleVanta vs Acompli
Compare Vanta directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
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 moduleCompare Secureframe and Vanta against a real workflow.
Bring one RoPA, DPIA, vendor, risk or AI-governance requirement and map which parts Secureframe covers, which Vanta 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.