Who each option is best for, and where either supplier is deliberately narrower.
Vendor comparison
Vanta vs Securiti: capability comparison
A side-by-side comparison of Vanta and Securiti across RoPA, DPIA, vendor risk, AI governance and evidence workflows. Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
VantaSecuritiComparison
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
- Vanta and Securiti are compared here on public-documentation capability coverage: Vanta is publicly documented for 14 of 20 tracked capabilities, Securiti for 17.
- The clearest differences: Vanta adds Training module, Spreadsheet import; Securiti adds DSAR / privacy rights, Consent management, Cookie/tracker scanning, Breach/incident management, Retention management.
- Vanta's public lane is Trust, security, compliance and GRC automation; 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
Vanta vs Securiti
Vanta is positioned as: Trust, security, compliance and GRC automation. Securiti is positioned as: Enterprise DataAI command platform: DSPM, data discovery, data security, privacy automation, consent, breach, data governance and AI security. Vanta 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.
Securiti has broader public-documentation coverage in this comparison (17 of 20 tracked rows, compared with 14 for Vanta). Capability coverage below reflects what each vendor publicly documents; Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
02At a glance
Vanta vs Securiti at a glance
| Decision question | Vanta | Securiti | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Security-led teams that want automated compliance, continuous GRC, audit evidence, trust centre workflows and security/privacy framework coverage | Large enterprises that need data discovery, classification, security posture, AI security, privacy automation, consent and breach workflows at scale | Privacy teams whose primary need is defensible GDPR and AI governance records, not only security compliance evidence |
| Operating model | A trust-management platform for automated security and compliance (SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI), with privacy-management features for RoPA and assessments | DataAI command platform combining DSPM, data discovery, data governance, privacy automation, consent, breach and AI security | 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 Vanta when security compliance, SOC 2 or ISO evidence, GRC and trust operations are the centre of the buying case | Choose Securiti when data security, discovery, consent, breach and AI controls are part of the same enterprise requirement | Choose Acompli when the privacy team needs more depth around DPIA decisions, Article 30 upkeep evidence, processors, transfers and AI Act records |
- 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.
- 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 Vanta 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.
Vanta official website
Open the official Vanta source used to ground this profile.
ExploreSecuriti official platform pages
Open the official Securiti source used to ground this profile.
Explore| Signal | Vanta | Securiti |
|---|---|---|
| Public positioning | Vanta positions itself around trust management, security compliance automation, continuous monitoring and framework readiness. | Securiti positions its Data Command Center around privacy, security, governance and AI across enterprise data estates. |
| Main public signals | 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. | 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 | Cloud-first companies that need SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI, GDPR, vendor risk and audit evidence automation | 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 Vanta 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 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.
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
Vanta 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; Data mapping; Vendor risk; Privacy risk; AI governance; Policy/notice management; plus 5 more | If your requirement sits here, compare workflow depth, implementation effort, evidence quality and price. |
| Only Vanta publicly confirmed | Training module; Spreadsheet import | Keep Vanta on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Securiti whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Only Securiti publicly confirmed | DSAR / privacy rights; Consent management; Cookie/tracker scanning; Breach/incident management; Retention management | Keep Securiti on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Vanta 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
Vanta vs Securiti: capability by capability
Each capability is marked Y or N for Vanta and Securiti based on what each vendor publicly documents, with Acompli shown in the final column.
| Capability | Vanta | Securiti | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPIA/PIA assessments | Y | Y | Y |
| RoPA / Article 30 | Y | 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 | Y | N |
| Breach/incident management | N | Y | N |
| Retention management | N | Y | Y |
| Policy/notice management | Y | Y | N |
| Training module | Y | 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
Vanta vs Securiti: the differences that matter
On the tracked capabilities, Vanta 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 Vanta (not Securiti) is evidenced for: Training module, Spreadsheet import.
- Only Securiti (not Vanta) is evidenced for: DSAR / privacy rights, Consent management, Cookie/tracker scanning, Breach/incident management, Retention management.
- 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.
- 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 Vanta 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 Vanta 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 Vanta 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 Vanta or Securiti package.
12Shortlisting notes
Choosing between Vanta and Securiti
Assess Vanta and Securiti against the workflow you actually need to run - RoPA, DPIA, vendor and risk records - and how defensibly each exports its evidence.
- Shortlist Vanta when security compliance, SOC 2 or ISO evidence, GRC and trust operations are the centre of the buying case.
- Shortlist Securiti when data security, discovery, consent, breach and AI controls are part of the same enterprise requirement.
- Put the same case to Vanta 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
Vanta vs Securiti: Article 30 records for Irish and UK teams
Both Vanta 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 Vanta 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 | Vanta | Securiti | Why customers care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controller record | Ask Vanta 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 Vanta 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 Vanta 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 Vanta 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 Vanta 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 Vanta or Securiti?
- Export - can Vanta or Securiti let each legal entity produce a self-contained record its own supervisory authority can read?
Comparison FAQ
Vanta vs Securiti questions answered
Acompli answers
Acompli: the focused alternative to both
Acompli overlap
Related Acompli workflows
Vanta vs Acompli
Compare Vanta 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 moduleRoPA management
Maintain Article 30 records that stay linked to approved assessments, systems, suppliers and transfers.
Open moduleAssessments
Run DPIAs, LIAs, TIAs, processor reviews and AI Act assessments with templates, AI support and human approval.
Open moduleCompare Vanta and Securiti against a real workflow.
Bring one RoPA, DPIA, vendor, risk or AI-governance requirement and map which parts Vanta 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.