AuditBoard vs. OneTrust GRC & Security Assurance Cloud

Auditboard is especially useful for SOX control testing. It is very convenient having all our information on a single platform. It is easy to communicate PBC requests to clients, store control testing working papers for review, communicate deficiencies and build dashboards to provide visual statistics. Situations where it might not be useful are for organizations that are smaller in size where the templates don't fit well with their internal audit/controls program. There is a significant amount of testing required before using the platform, and adapting working papers to fit in well with AuditBoard

Incentivized

OneTrust provides a repeatable and defined process for vendor assessments but should be adapted to your organization. OneTrust functions well for a centralized document repository. The pricing of modules and what modules are required for workflows to function fully should be better defined. Automated assessments can wind up in spam filters and should be communicated outside of the platform prior to sending to the vendor.

Incentivized

• AuditBoard allows real-time collaboration between control and business owners and auditors.
• AuditBoard has a lot of fantastic training sessions and office hours to help users make the most of the product.
• AuditBoard has great customer service personnel to answer questions and troubleshoot any issues.

Incentivized

• Module wise implementation.
• Very reasonable price structure.
• Easy and speedy to implement.
• Product roadmap.

• We used to perform our Risk Control Analysis (RCA) for each audit's planning in an Excel spreadsheet. Once we purchased the Risk Oversight module, AuditBoard helped us convert the RCA to a system function rather than a spreadsheet. At first, we lost some of the functionality the spreadsheet provided, but AuditBoard did continue to help us build and work towards a solution more similar to what we previously had. Though happy with it, it's still not perfect. As one example, I'd like to be able to link actual Ops Audit work steps that cover the risk and controls being outlined in the RCA, rather than just adding a comment to state which steps cover them. More of a preference, I suppose.
• I also had demoed their beta Resources and Scheduling module, but it didn't have enough functionality at the time to work for how we put the quarterly Internal Audit schedule together (using Excel). One thing I recall was that you couldn't pull in SOX controls or non-chargeable work (such as education or administration) to auditor's schedules; it was meant to schedule the Ops Audits only. It is possible they have already fixed or improved this; I just haven't seen the updated version.

Incentivized

• Documentation chasing for assessments is not as automated or hands-off as demos made it seem.
• Getting custom risk matrix set up required professional onboarding.
• Platform is less than intuitive.
• Pricing is module dependent and demos do not highlight which module is included in which workflow.

Incentivized

I remember there were a lot of sync issues when I used the internally developed software, but that's probably because a few people were working on the same project at the same time. I have not come across this issue in AuditBoard

Incentivized

During the assessment, we found that OneTrust is easier to use, set up, and administer. it has a quick ROI and value for business. The OneTrust product support and roadmap are far more competitive in comparison to TrustArc. OneTrust is specialized in GRC including Data Privacy and Cookie compliance, where Archer is good in Enterprise Risk management.

• Hard to quantify. It was cheaper than the tool we had and we were able to get rid of standalone tool for surveys. overall, just better user experience for all.

Incentivized

• More uniform vendor assessments.
• Defensible numeric metrics reflecting risk.
• Centralized document repository for audit proofs.

Incentivized