Who each option is best for, and where either supplier is deliberately narrower.
Vendor comparison
TrustArc vs Securiti: capability comparison
A side-by-side comparison of TrustArc and Securiti across RoPA, DPIA, vendor risk, AI governance and evidence workflows. Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
TrustArcSecuritiComparison
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
- TrustArc and Securiti are compared here on public-documentation capability coverage: TrustArc is publicly documented for 18 of 20 tracked capabilities, Securiti for 17.
- The clearest difference: TrustArc adds Spreadsheet import, which Securiti doesn't publicly document.
- TrustArc's public lane is Enterprise privacy management platform with consulting, validation, data mapping, risk, assessments and consent heritage; Securiti's public lane is Enterprise DataAI command platform: DSPM, data discovery, data security, privacy automation, consent, breach, data governance and AI security.
- Coverage marks reflect what each vendor publicly documents. Confirm live scope, pricing and export formats with each vendor before deciding.
01Short answer
TrustArc vs Securiti
TrustArc is positioned as: Enterprise privacy management platform with consulting, validation, data mapping, risk, assessments and consent heritage. Securiti is positioned as: Enterprise DataAI command platform: DSPM, data discovery, data security, privacy automation, consent, breach, data governance and AI security. TrustArc 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.
TrustArc has broader public-documentation coverage in this comparison (18 of 20 tracked rows, compared with 17 for Securiti). Capability coverage below reflects what each vendor publicly documents; Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
02At a glance
TrustArc vs Securiti at a glance
| Decision question | TrustArc | Securiti | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Enterprises that want a broad privacy management and data governance platform with consent, assessments, regulatory resources and programme support | Large enterprises that need data discovery, classification, security posture, AI security, privacy automation, consent and breach workflows at scale | Irish, UK and EU teams that want connected GDPR and AI governance records with visible source evidence and named human approval |
| Operating model | An established US enterprise privacy-management platform with data mapping, assessments, consent heritage, privacy intelligence and consulting/validation services | DataAI command platform combining DSPM, data discovery, data governance, privacy automation, consent, breach and AI security | Connected, EU-based privacy governance records across RoPA, DPIA, DSAR, risk, vendors, data mapping and EU AI Act governance |
| When to choose it | Choose TrustArc when broad privacy-management coverage, consent governance, consulting support or established enterprise privacy operations are the main requirement | Choose Securiti when data security, discovery, consent, breach and AI controls are part of the same enterprise requirement | Choose Acompli when the buyer is less concerned with platform breadth and more concerned with preserving reviewable, EU-based evidence across live privacy records |
- Best for: Mature enterprise privacy programmes needing platform coverage, consulting support, privacy intelligence, data mapping and assessments.
- Deployment: Enterprise privacy platform plus consulting/validation; deployment options were not fully verified in this pack.
- 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 TrustArc 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.
TrustArc official product pages
Open the official TrustArc source used to ground this profile.
ExploreSecuriti official platform pages
Open the official Securiti source used to ground this profile.
Explore| Signal | TrustArc | Securiti |
|---|---|---|
| Public positioning | TrustArc positions its products around Privacy Studio, Governance Suite and Assurance Services for enterprise privacy compliance. | Securiti positions its Data Command Center around privacy, security, governance and AI across enterprise data estates. |
| Main public signals | Official pages list Cookie Consent Manager, Consent & Preference Manager, Individual Rights Manager and Trust Center under Privacy Studio.; TrustArc's Governance Suite includes PrivacyCentral, Data Mapping & Risk Manager, Assessment Manager and Nymity Research.; Assurance Services include TRUSTe certifications, GDPR validation and Responsible AI Certification. | 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 | Mature enterprise privacy programmes needing platform coverage, consulting support, privacy intelligence, data mapping and assessments | 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 TrustArc 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 TrustArc (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.
TrustArc was acquired by Main Capital Partners, a Netherlands-based private equity firm, in a deal announced in October 2025 (from previous majority owner Bregal Sagemount, which had led TrustArc's earlier $70M Series D). TrustArc's CEO Jason Wesbecher confirmed the deal in the company's own press release, framing it around expanding TrustArc's presence in Europe and India and accelerating AI-driven product development; corroborating coverage (Main Capital Partners' and Bregal Sagemount's own releases) put TrustArc's scale at 1,200+ customers across 25+ countries and 300+ employees, with named enterprise customers including HPE, Salesforce, Oracle, Samsung and Mattel. This ownership change is not reflected anywhere in the existing trustarc.ts profile.
Independent of the Capterra 'reported 0 reviews' figure already cited in the existing profile, TrustArc carries a substantial G2 review footprint: an aggregate rating of roughly 4.2 out of 5 stars across 300+ verified reviews (92% rated 4 or 5 stars), and TrustArc's own G2 grid-report materials and press releases claim repeated #1/Leader placement in G2's Data Privacy Management grid across multiple consecutive quarters (figures cited range from 4 to 11+ quarters depending on report date, most recently referencing a Fall 2025/Winter 2026 G2 report - vendor-published claims, not independently re-verified quarter counts here). This is a genuine independent-review data point not currently reflected in the profile's reviewPricing text, which cites only the Capterra/Software Advice figures.
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
TrustArc 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 10 more | If your requirement sits here, compare workflow depth, implementation effort, evidence quality and price. |
| Only TrustArc publicly confirmed | Spreadsheet import | Keep TrustArc on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Securiti whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Only Securiti publicly confirmed | Securiti has no unique tracked public capability against TrustArc in this dataset. | Keep Securiti on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask TrustArc 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
TrustArc vs Securiti: capability by capability
Each row shows TrustArc and Securiti marked Y or N based on public documentation, with Acompli shown in the final column for reference.
| Capability | TrustArc | 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 | Y | Y | N |
| Retention management | Y | 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 | N | N | N |
10Where each is stronger
TrustArc vs Securiti: the differences that matter
Most rows are shared between TrustArc and Securiti; what separates them is the handful of capabilities only one evidences and the specialist focus each is built around.
- Only TrustArc (not Securiti) is evidenced for: Spreadsheet import.
- TrustArc: Enterprise-grade breadth with PrivacyCentral, Assessment Manager and Data Mapping & Risk Manager across a large global programme.
- TrustArc: Privacy consulting and validation services alongside the platform.
- 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 TrustArc 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 TrustArc 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 TrustArc 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 TrustArc or Securiti package.
12Shortlisting notes
Choosing between TrustArc and Securiti
Weigh TrustArc and Securiti 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 TrustArc when broad privacy-management coverage, consent governance, consulting support or established enterprise privacy operations are the main requirement.
- Shortlist Securiti when data security, discovery, consent, breach and AI controls are part of the same enterprise requirement.
- Put the same case to TrustArc 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
TrustArc vs Securiti: Article 30 records for Irish and UK teams
Both TrustArc 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 TrustArc 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 | TrustArc | Securiti | Why customers care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controller record | Ask TrustArc 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 TrustArc 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 TrustArc 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 TrustArc 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 TrustArc and Securiti model controller and processor records separately, scoped by legal entity?
- EU and UK GDPR - can TrustArc or Securiti hold both on one register, mapped to what the DPC and ICO expect?
- Export - does TrustArc or Securiti let each legal entity produce a stand-alone record its supervisory authority can read without platform access?
Comparison FAQ
TrustArc vs Securiti questions answered
Acompli answers
Acompli: the focused alternative to both
Acompli overlap
Related Acompli workflows
TrustArc vs Acompli
Compare TrustArc 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 moduleData mapping
Build a living view of systems, suppliers, locations, data categories and transfers.
Open moduleAssessments
Run DPIAs, LIAs, TIAs, processor reviews and AI Act assessments with templates, AI support and human approval.
Open moduleCompare TrustArc and Securiti against a real workflow.
Bring one RoPA, DPIA, vendor, risk or AI-governance requirement and map which parts TrustArc 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.