Information Security

Vanta

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The CISO v1.0 · The GRC Consultant v1.0 · The Drafted IT Officer v1.1 · The Lead Auditor v1.0 · The Evidence Integrator v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.1 · rubric v1 · evaluated 16 Sep 2026

Compare with SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS) → Compare with Secureframe → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

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

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 entire ISMS core rests on one feature line — 'Risk management with customization, dashboard, and reporting' at Professional — plus a TPRM agent. No asset inventory, no treatment tracking, no protection-needs inheritance, and nothing on incident workflows with NIS2 clocks; that's a dashboard sitting on top of a hole where the risk backbone should be. 2 1

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

'Continuous controls monitoring' and 'Advanced control management' are more than a status checklist, and evidence collection is automated — but a statement of applicability is never mentioned, nor measure ownership, delegation, or internal-audit findings management. I can run controls here; I cannot produce a SoA from live control status because the evidence gives no evidence that machinery exists. 2 1

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

35+ frameworks continuously monitored is real breadth and GDPR gets dedicated workflows, but there is zero evidence of one-control-many-frameworks mapping — Essentials literally ships 'One compliance framework' — and TISAX, DORA and BSI IT-Grundschutz appear nowhere in the registry. Breadth without cross-mapping means my client answers the same control once per framework, which is exactly what I refuse to buy. 1 3 2

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

Automated evidence collection, a first-class Auditor API, six customizable reports and a real-time Trust Center are genuine audit tooling with auditor access as a named concept. But revision-safe change history and a defensible 'state on date X' answer are completely silent, and that's the first thing a certifier asks me for. 2 1

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

400+ integrations, a documented API with custom integration development, custom monitoring tests, automated evidence collection and automated access management — this is the platform's spine, and it feeds from the live estate instead of re-typing. The only unevidenced items are SSO/SCIM and webhooks, which keeps it just short of infrastructure-grade. 2 1

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

The risk register would sit with Vanta Inc., San Francisco, under FTC jurisdiction via DPF self-certification, processed by AWS, Cloudflare and MongoDB — all US-reachable — with EU as a selectable region rather than a default. DPA and subprocessor list are published, which lifts it above the floor, but a US posture end to end — plus a privacy policy that admits sharing identifiers with ad networks — means my European clients' ISMS does not live here. 5 4

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

No public numbers at all — 'Request a free demo today... get personalized pricing' — even though the tier structure and feature splits are listed. A buyer cannot compute even a rough invoice; rubric level 0 describes this exactly. 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

2 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Legal entity	Incorporated in US ⚠ unverified	0/3 pts	6 Report an error
Ownership	Not determined	—	uncited Report an error
Data residency	EU optional ⚠ unverified	1/3 pts	4 Report an error
Subprocessors	Not determined ⚠ unverified	—	uncited Report an error

Where this could be wrong

Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 23 Aug 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The statement names the head office location but no register or place of incorporation; 'Vanta Inc.' with a US head office strongly implies a US entity, yet no state of incorporation is given.
Weak sourcing — Data residency. The trust-center subprocessor table lists hosting regions but no default region is stated, and the privacy policy notes transfers 'from locations outside the United States to the United States'.
Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
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.

154 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
73 compliance 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
16 subprocessors 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
15 legal 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
10 integrations 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
9 support 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
2 data 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
2 pricing 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. 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
The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us

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

Sources (16)

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

1 Vendor homepage www.vanta.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
2 Vendor pricing page www.vanta.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
3 GDPR product page www.vanta.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
4 Security/trust page trust.vanta.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 +5 earlier captures: 24 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026, 23 Aug 2026, 23 Aug 2026, 23 Aug 2026 Details →
5 Privacy policy www.vanta.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
6 Legal notice www.vanta.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
7 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.vanta.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
8 Asset & risk management depth — found from sitemap www.vanta.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
9 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap help.vanta.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
10 Controls, SoA & measures — found from sitemap www.vanta.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
11 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.vanta.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
12 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.vanta.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
13 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap help.vanta.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
14 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.vanta.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
15 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.vanta.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
16 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.vanta.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →