Information Security
Drata
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Drata, Inc. · drata.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Drata at a glance
- Vendor
- Drata, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Drata 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Drata, from vendor of record Drata, Inc., is a SaaS compliance platform whose strongest showing is framework coverage, scored 8 with no spread: roughly thirty regimes — NIS 2, DORA, SOC 2 and both editions of ISO 27001 — pre-mapped onto one control set, so one control answers many frameworks. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Drata, from vendor of record Drata, Inc., is a SaaS compliance platform whose strongest showing is framework coverage, scored 8 with no spread: roughly thirty regimes — NIS 2, DORA, SOC 2 and both editions of ISO 27001 — pre-mapped onto one control set, so one control answers many frameworks. Audit readiness scores 6-7 on pre-audit evidence packages that auto-regenerate and reach connected auditors through an auditor API; integrations and automation scores 6-8 on a documented public API (500 requests per minute) and a Jira Cloud connector that monitors tickets and collects evidence automatically. Sovereignty is the weak point at 0-2: no sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on hosting location, a data-processing agreement or a subprocessor list. Judges split 4-7 on controls and SoA: the 7 reads live readiness plus global scope marking as a statement of applicability that keeps itself current, while the 4s point to no public information on statement-of-applicability generation, measure ownership with due dates, or findings management. Information security management sits at 4-5, with asset classification living in a notes column.
Speaks for it
- Roughly thirty regimes, NIS 2 and DORA among them, pre-mapped onto one control set so one control answers many frameworks (framework coverage scored 8 with no spread)
- Pre-audit evidence packages auto-regenerate when things change and reach connected auditors automatically through an auditor API, with no manual resending
- Controls cannot be deleted to preserve the audit trail, and in/out-of-scope marking applies globally across every framework a control is mapped to
- A documented public API with scoped keys, IP allow-listing and a 500 requests per minute rate limit, plus a Jira Cloud connector doing automated ticket monitoring and evidence collection
- Automated cloud queries keep a digital asset inventory of virtual machines, servers, repositories, security agents and user accounts current
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 0-2: no sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on hosting location, a data-processing agreement or a subprocessor list
- Asset classification lives in a notes column, and we found no public information on a documented risk methodology or incident handling with statutory reporting clocks
- Outdated pre-audit package versions are removed, and we found no public information on reconstructing the state on a given date or on management-level reporting
- The captured pages name Jira as the single native connector, and we found no public information on webhooks, SCIM provisioning or ServiceNow-class ticketing and CMDB connectors
- No prices, editions or billing periods appear on the captured pages, and expanding to additional frameworks requires contacting your account manager
Best for
- You pursue or maintain several regimes at once and want one control set to answer many frameworks without duplicated effort
- You want audit evidence that assembles and refreshes itself, with updated packages reaching your connected auditor automatically
- Your team already runs on Jira Cloud and wants automated ticket monitoring and evidence collection for vulnerability-management controls
- You need NIS 2 or EU DORA content in the same platform as regimes such as SOC 2 and ISO 27001
Avoid if
- You must place the system holding your risk register under European jurisdiction — the captured pages record no sovereignty attributes, and sovereignty scored 0-2
- You need revision-safe history and a defensible answer to the state of your records on a given date — outdated package versions are removed and the bench found no public information on point-in-time reconstruction
- Your workflows depend on ticketing or CMDB integrations beyond Jira Cloud — Jira is the single native connector named on the captured pages
- Your risk program needs incident handling with statutory reporting clocks or a documented risk methodology — information security management scored 4-5
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Asset & risk management depth | 2 of 5 |
| Controls, SoA & measures | 3 of 5 |
| Framework & standard coverage | 4 of 5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 3.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & automation | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
Asset & risk management depth
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The ISMS core: asset inventory, risk methodology (identification, assessment, treatment), protection-needs inheritance, incident handling with statutory clocks.
0 — No ISMS substance; "information security" is a chapter in the marketing site.
3 — A flat risk list and an asset spreadsheet import; no treatment tracking, no inheritance, incidents live in the ticket system.
5 — Asset and risk management with configurable matrices and treatment tracking; basic incident handling; inheritance and aggregation need manual work.
8 — A real risk backbone: documented methodology (ISO 27005 or equivalent), inherited protection needs across asset relations, incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks (NIS2 24h/72h), risk acceptance with ownership.
10 — Risk management a certifier works inside: complete asset-risk-treatment chain with inheritance, continuity planning, incident reporting with authority export, and risk reporting the executive level actually reads.
The CISO
Automated discovery of digital assets across the cloud estate and a risk module covering identifying, scoring and treating risks are real, but classification sits in a Notes column on the asset page, and I found no public information on a documented risk methodology, protection-needs inheritance across asset relations, risk acceptance with named ownership, or incident workflows with the NIS2 24-hour and 72-hour clocks. As a risk backbone this reads as a compliance register that cannot yet tell me who accepted what. 1 2
The GRC Consultant
The risk assessment module covers identifying, scoring and treating risks, and the asset side is genuinely automated — cloud queries record virtual machines, repositories, security agents and user accounts, with physical equipment tracked alongside. But I found no public information on a documented risk methodology, protection-needs inheritance across asset relations, or any incident handling with statutory reporting clocks, which leaves this well short of a certifiable risk backbone. 1 2
The Drafted IT Officer
Automated discovery of cloud assets and a risk module covering identifying, scoring and treating risks are there, with short guided tutorials that suit a one-person security function. But asset classification is done by typing into a notes column on the asset page, and we found no public information on a documented risk methodology, protection-needs inheritance across asset relations, or any incident handling with statutory reporting deadlines. 1 2
The Lead Auditor
A real risk module is taught as a three-part identify-score-treat workflow, and asset inventory is automated across cloud sources rather than typed in from a spreadsheet. But we found no public information on a documented risk methodology, protection-needs inheritance across asset relations, or incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks, which is what separates a certifiable ISMS backbone from a well-kept list. 1 2
The Evidence Integrator
Asset management is more than a spreadsheet: automated cloud queries keep a digital inventory of virtual machines, servers, repositories, security agents and user accounts current, with classification living in a notes column and policy templates covering retirement and media sanitization. A risk module handles identifying, scoring and treating risks, but we found no public information on configurable risk matrices, inherited protection needs across asset relations, or incident handling with statutory reporting clocks. 1 2
The Skeptic
Automated discovery of digital assets across cloud infrastructure is genuinely evidenced, and a risk assessment module covers identifying, scoring and treating risks — though only as a three-part tutorial with no methodology named, while asset and data classification is placed in a free-text Notes column. We found no public information on incident handling, risk acceptance with ownership, or protection-needs inheritance. 1 2
Controls, SoA & measures
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Control catalogs, statement of applicability, measure tracking and internal audit — whether the control side of the ISMS is operable or a checklist.
0 — A static control checklist; applicability, implementation status and evidence are the consultant's spreadsheet.
3 — Control catalogs with status fields, but no SoA generation, no measure ownership, no link between controls and risks.
5 — Controls linked to risks and measures with owners and due dates; SoA producible with manual assembly; internal audit supported by checklists.
8 — SoA on demand from live control status, measure tracking with delegation and escalation, internal audit workflows with findings management, controls carrying their own evidence.
10 — The control fabric as a living system: catalog updates versioned, SoA always current, audit programs with recurring schedules, and every control answerable with linked evidence at any moment.
The CISO
Scope marking is live and global across every mapped framework, controls carry monitoring status with resolution workflows for failed tests and pending approvals, control records are non-deletable to preserve the trail, and internal audits run the same evidence workflow as external ones — that is more than checklist theater. I found no public information on measure tracking with delegation and escalation, findings management inside audit programs, or generation of a statement of applicability as a standing document. 3 4 8 4
The GRC Consultant
Readiness is computed live from in-scope controls mapped to in-scope requirements, scope marking is global across every mapped framework, and controls cannot be deleted — together that behaves like a statement of applicability that keeps itself current. Monitored controls carry status indicators with resolution workflows for failed tests and missing evidence, and internal audits reuse the external audit workflow. I found no public information on measure delegation, escalation, or findings management, which is what separates this from a fully living control fabric. 3 4 5 4
The Drafted IT Officer
Controls carry live monitoring status with plain indicators and resolution steps for failed tests, missing evidence and pending approvals, scope can be marked in bulk, and controls cannot be deleted, which keeps the trail intact — that is operable, not a checklist. What we did not find is public information on measure ownership with due dates, delegation or escalation, or a statement of applicability generated on demand from live status; control-to-requirement mappings can be exported, which reads as manual assembly. 3 4 7
The Lead Auditor
Controls carry live monitoring status with resolution workflows, and in/out-of-scope marking propagates globally across every framework a control is mapped to, with non-deletability explicitly justified by audit trail — good bones. We found no public information on statement-of-applicability generation, measure ownership with due dates, or a link between controls and risks, so this reads as a well-run catalog rather than the operable control system the top of this bench demands. 3 4 5 4
The Evidence Integrator
Monitored controls carry status indicators with resolution workflows for failed tests, missing evidence and pending approvals, scope markings apply globally across every framework a control is mapped to, and controls cannot be deleted to preserve the audit trail. Internal audits run with the same workflow as external ones. We found no public information on generating a statement of applicability from live control status, on measure tracking with delegation and escalation, or on findings management. 3 4 8 4
The Skeptic
Monitored and not-monitored controls with automated test indicators, resolution workflows, non-deletable records, and scope marking that propagates across every mapped framework go beyond a static checklist. But we found no public information on statement of applicability generation, measure ownership with due dates, internal audit findings management, or any link between controls and risks. 3 4 4
Framework & standard coverage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which regimes the product actually operationalizes — ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX/VDA ISA, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz, SOC 2 — and whether one control maps across them or each framework is a fresh island.
0 — One framework, hard-coded; anything else is "on the roadmap".
3 — Two or three frameworks as separate checklists; the same control is answered once per framework.
5 — The major regimes for its market with partial cross-mapping; newer regimes (NIS2, DORA) present as content packs of varying depth.
8 — Broad current coverage including NIS2/TISAX/DORA where relevant, one-control-many-frameworks mapping, and visible maintenance as regimes evolve.
10 — Framework coverage as a living product: dozens of regimes, genuine multi-compliance mapping on one data basis, per-industry profiles, and documented update cadence when the standard moves.
The CISO
Roughly thirty regimes — NIS 2 and DORA among them — are pre-mapped onto one control basis with readiness computed from in-scope mappings, and current versions such as ISO 27001:2022, PCI DSS v4.0 and NIST CSF 2.0 show the catalogs are kept fresh. I found no public information on TISAX or BSI IT-Grundschutz, which a German-market certificate would need, nor on a documented update cadence when a standard moves. 5 6 4
The GRC Consultant
Around thirty regimes are listed as pre-mapped to a common control framework — including NIS 2, DORA, ISO 27001:2022, PCI DSS v4.0 and NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 — and a scope decision on one control applies to every framework it is mapped to, so a control is answered once for many regimes. The DORA material shows genuine regulatory understanding rather than a checklist port. I found no public information on TISAX or BSI IT-Grundschutz, and none on a documented update cadence, which keeps it off the top bench. 4 5 6
The Drafted IT Officer
Roughly thirty frameworks are supported, with NIS 2 and DORA pre-mapped alongside ISO 27001 in both revisions, PCI DSS v4.0, SOC 2 and the NIST family, and a control marked in or out of scope applies across every framework it is mapped to, so work is not duplicated per regime. Per-industry profiles, a documented update cadence when a standard moves, and TISAX coverage are things we found no public information on. 4 5 6
The Lead Auditor
Thirty-plus regimes including NIS 2, DORA, both ISO 27001 versions, and current NIST and PCI revisions, pre-mapped onto one control framework so a single control answer serves many frameworks, with scope changes propagating across mappings. Version pairs such as ISO 27001:2013 alongside 2022 show the catalog moving with the standards; we found no public information on TISAX or BSI IT-Grundschutz, nor a documented update cadence, which is what keeps this short of the top state. 4 5 6
The Evidence Integrator
More than thirty regimes are supported, with NIS 2 and DORA pre-mapped alongside SOC 2, both the 2013 and 2022 editions of ISO 27001, two PCI DSS versions and two NIST 800-171 revisions — the version pairs read as maintenance as regimes evolve. Frameworks pre-map onto one control set and control scope applies across all mapped frameworks, so a control answers many regimes at once; we found no public information on TISAX or BSI IT-Grundschutz. 4 5 6
The Skeptic
The captured framework page lists roughly thirty regimes — NIS 2, DORA, ISO 27001 in both versions, PCI DSS v4.0, NIST 800-171 Rev 3 — mostly pre-mapped onto a shared control set so one control answers many frameworks, with successor standard versions visibly added over time. We found no public information on TISAX or BSI IT-Grundschutz, and expanding to further frameworks runs through the account manager. 4 5 6
Audit readiness & evidence
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the system produces defensible proof: revision-safe history, evidence collection, reports for auditors, authorities and management.
0 — Exports are screenshots; history is overwritten in place.
3 — PDF reports exist but evidence is attached ad hoc and changes leave no reliable trail.
5 — Versioned records, standard report generators, evidence attachments per control; assembling a full audit file still takes days.
8 — Revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, management reports current at a click, auditor access roles.
10 — Audit readiness as a standing state: continuous evidence status per framework and scope, exportable proof packs an external auditor accepts as-is, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X".
The CISO
Pre-audit evidence packages generate on demand across named categories, auto-regenerate with outdated versions removed, and a connected auditor receives updated packages automatically, while the non-deletable control record supports the trail. I found no public information on revision-safe change history across the wider record set, management-level reporting at a click, or an answer to the state of the system on a given date. 4 7 8
The GRC Consultant
Pre-audit evidence packages generate on demand across named categories, auto-regenerate when the underlying data changes, and reach connected auditors automatically through the auditor API — that is a curated evidence pack rather than screenshots. Internal audits run the same request, message and evidence workflow with clear labeling, and non-deletable controls support the trail. I found no public information on management reporting or a point-in-time reconstruction of the state on a given date, which the top of this bench demands. 4 7 8
The Drafted IT Officer
Pre-audit evidence packages generate on demand across named categories, regenerate automatically when things change, and auditors connected through the auditor API receive updated packages without manual resending; internal audits run on the same workflow as external ones with a distinct label. We found no public information on management-level reporting or on demonstrating the state of records at a past date, which is what separates this from standing audit readiness. 4 7 8
The Lead Auditor
Pre-audit evidence packages generate on demand across named categories, auto-regenerate on change, and reach connected auditors automatically, while internal audits reuse the same workflow and auditor roles are separated — that is evidence-pack production, not screenshots. For the top of this bench I would need revision-safe history and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X": the captured pages state that outdated package versions are removed, and we found no public information on management reports or reconstruction of past states. 4 7 8
The Evidence Integrator
Pre-audit evidence packages assemble across ten categories — assets, control mappings, policies, vendors, personnel among them — regenerate automatically when attributes change, and reach connected auditors through an auditor API without manual resending; internal audits reuse the same evidence workflow, and controls cannot be deleted to keep the trail intact. We found no public information on reconstructing the state on a given date or on management-level reporting, so full revision safety is not evidenced. 3 4 7 8
The Skeptic
Pre-audit packages generate on demand across ten named categories, auto-regenerate with outdated versions removed, and reach auditors automatically through an auditor API, while internal audits reuse the external workflow with identity-provider-synced auditor roles. The evidence library category is manual-only, and we found no public information on point-in-time state reconstruction or management-level reporting; revision safety rests on a statement that controls cannot be deleted. 4 7 8
Integrations & automation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the platform feeds from the real IT estate — directory import, CMDB, ticketing, scanners, API — and automates evidence collection instead of re-typing it.
0 — A closed island: manual entry in, PDF out, no API.
3 — CSV/Excel import and export; no live connections, no API worth the name.
5 — Directory import (AD/Entra), a documented REST API for core objects, a handful of native connectors (ticketing, CMDB or SSO); automation is reminders and recurrence.
8 — Real connector set (Jira/ServiceNow-class ticketing, CMDB, cloud and endpoint sources), webhooks, SSO/SCIM, automated evidence tests with human review.
10 — The platform behaves like infrastructure: API parity for the data model, event streams, continuous control monitoring against the live estate, and automation that measurably removes the recurring toil rather than renaming it.
The CISO
A documented public API with scoped, expiring, IP-restrictable keys, Jira Cloud with automated evidence collection and continuous ticket monitoring, automated asset queries across cloud infrastructure, and identity-provider sync mean the platform feeds from the real estate instead of re-typing it. I found no public information on webhooks, SCIM provisioning, or native connectors beyond Jira Cloud in the captured pages. 1 8 9 10
The GRC Consultant
A documented public API with scoped keys, IP restriction and rate limits sits alongside a deep Jira Cloud connector that continuously monitors tickets and pulls evidence for vulnerability management controls, while asset discovery across cloud infrastructure runs automatically. Automated monitoring tests with resolution workflows exist for controls, and personnel sync from the identity provider feeds auditor assignment. Beyond Jira I found no public information on webhooks, SCIM provisioning, or CMDB and endpoint sources, so the connector set as evidenced is narrower than the bench's higher rungs. 1 3 9 10
The Drafted IT Officer
A documented public API with scoped keys, expiration and IP restrictions, a deep Jira Cloud integration that continuously monitors tickets and pulls evidence for compliance tests, and automated queries across cloud infrastructure that keep the asset inventory current add up to real automation rather than re-typing. Beyond Jira we found no public information on other ticketing or CMDB connectors, webhooks, or endpoint and scanner sources, so the connector set cannot be confirmed as broad. 1 3 9 10
The Lead Auditor
A documented public API with scoped keys, rate limits and key lifecycle, a Jira integration that continuously monitors tickets and pulls evidence for vulnerability-management controls, and automated cloud asset discovery feeding the inventory — the automation is real, not reminders renamed. The one connector named is Jira; we found no public information on ServiceNow-class ticketing, CMDB, endpoint sources, webhooks or SCIM, so the breadth of the connector set is unproven even where its quality is visible. 1 3 8 9 10
The Evidence Integrator
This platform feeds from the live estate rather than through a CSV drawbridge: a documented public API with scoped keys, IP allow-listing, one-time key display and 500 requests per minute; a Jira Cloud connector doing continuous ticket monitoring and automated evidence collection for vulnerability-management controls; automated cloud queries populating the asset inventory; and identity-provider sync behind internal auditor assignment. Monitored controls run automated tests with failed-test and pending-approval workflows, which is automated evidence with human review. We found no public information on webhooks, SCIM provisioning, or ServiceNow-class ticketing and CMDB connectors, nor API parity for the full data model. 1 3 8 9 10
The Skeptic
A documented public API with scoped keys, IP restriction and a 500-requests-per-minute rate limit, a Jira Cloud connector doing automated evidence collection and continuous ticket monitoring, and automated cloud asset queries put this past reminders and recurrence. The captured pages name Jira as the single native connector, and we found no public information on webhooks, SCIM or CMDB-class sources. 1 3 9 10
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the security posture of the whole company actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. The risk register is itself a target.
0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for the system holding your risk register.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad or undocumented.
5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.
8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.
10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.
The CISO
I found no public information on the vendor's jurisdiction, hosting locations, data-processing agreement or subprocessor list in any captured page — and this is the system that would hold the risk register itself. Nothing in the captured product pages lets me place the security posture under European law. 5 9
The GRC Consultant
I found no public information on hosting regions or named data centers, the vendor's jurisdiction, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list — the captured material records no sovereignty attributes at all for a platform that would hold a client's entire risk register, delivered as SaaS. For my clients that gap is itself a risk entry. 1
The Drafted IT Officer
The vendor trades as Drata, Inc., and we found no public information on hosting region or named data centers, a data-processing agreement, or a subprocessor list — for the platform that would hold the risk register itself. Nothing in the captured material speaks to European jurisdiction at any point in the chain, which makes this the weakest spot for a European buyer. 2
The Lead Auditor
The vendor of record is Drata, Inc., a US-style entity delivering a SaaS platform, and we found no public information on hosting location, a published DPA, or a subprocessor list. For the system that would hold the risk register itself, that is the bottom state on this bench. 1
The Evidence Integrator
The vendor of record is Drata, Inc. and the captured pages carry no sovereignty attributes; we found no public information on hosting location, a data-processing agreement, or a subprocessor list for the system that would hold a customer's risk register. The only European element evidenced anywhere is a DORA framework content pack. 6
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information in the captured material on hosting location, data-processing terms, or subprocessors for the system that holds the risk register. The only European content is NIS 2 and DORA framework material — regulatory content for customers says nothing about the vendor's own entity or infrastructure. 5 6
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per module, per entity, per year, with consulting unbundled — from public pages alone. Unpublished pricing is the B2B norm in this market, so this criterion describes rather than condemns; the benches weight it accordingly.
0 — No public prices at all; every configuration is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but module add-ons, scale steps or bundled consulting make the real total incomputable.
5 — Most editions carry real numbers with billing period stated and software separated from services; at least one commonly needed module or scale step is unpriced.
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly with entity/user boundaries and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: modules, scale steps, service packages and renewal rules public, so the invoice for a 100-employee company and a certification project is a two-minute exercise.
The CISO
The captured pages carry no prices at all, and even enabling additional frameworks is described as something to raise with your account manager, so a buyer cannot begin to compute the real invoice. I found no public information on editions, modules, billing periods or setup fees. 5
The GRC Consultant
I found no public pricing information — no edition prices, module prices, or billing periods appear in the captured material. The only commercial signal is that expanding usage to additional frameworks goes through the account manager, so the real total is a sales conversation by construction. 5
The Drafted IT Officer
We found no public pricing information in the captured material, and the only commercial fact shown is that expanding usage to additional frameworks requires contacting your account manager. A buyer cannot compute a real invoice from these pages. 5
The Lead Auditor
No price, edition, or billing figure appears anywhere in the captured material, and the only commercial mechanic visible is that expanding usage to additional frameworks means you "please contact your account manager". A buyer cannot compute any part of the invoice from what is public here. 5
The Evidence Integrator
We found no public pricing information on any captured page — no edition prices, no module prices, no billing period — and expanding usage to additional frameworks requires contacting your account manager. A buyer cannot compute any part of the invoice from what is published here. 5
The Skeptic
We found no public pricing information in anything captured — no editions, modules, user tiers or numbers of any kind. Expanding usage to additional frameworks is routed through 'please contact your account manager', so no configuration can be priced from the captured pages. 5
Questions about Drata
Is Drata European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Drata is based.
Where does Drata store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Drata have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Drata?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates 6clicks (3.5/5), preeco | informationssicherheit (3.5/5) and Secfix (3.5/5) highest among the other 26 Information Security products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is preeco | informationssicherheit (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Drata alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (help.drata.com/en/articles/6568646-asset-management-policy-guidance, help.drata.com/en/articles/10194103-drata-risk-assessment, help.drata.com/en/articles/8532440-drata-controls, help.drata.com/en/articles/13381764-mark-controls-in-or-out-of-scope, help.drata.com/en/articles/5329593-frameworks, help.drata.com/en/articles/10512090-eu-dora-framework-overview and 4 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 5 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 integrations fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →