whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Information Security

Drata

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

Drata: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Drata: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

Drata alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The GRC Consultant

Weighted verdict

Builds and runs ISMSs for a dozen clients at once. Optimizes for reusable control catalogs, multi-framework mapping that answers a control once, and templates that make client twelve cheaper than client one. Rejects single-tenant tools and frameworks bolted on as checklists.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The GRC Consultant

Panel median The GRC Consultant This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The GRC Consultant
Asset & risk management depth 2 of 5 2 of 5
Controls, SoA & measures 3 of 5 3.5 of 5
Framework & standard coverage 4 of 5 4 of 5
Audit readiness & evidence 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Integrations & automation 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
European sovereignty 0.5 of 5 1 of 5

Asset & risk management depth

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Controls, SoA & measures

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Framework & standard coverage

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Audit readiness & evidence

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".

Report an error

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

Report an error

Integrations & automation

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

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

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.

Do you know more about Drata? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (10)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap help.drata.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →