Ironclad vs. OneTrust Tech Risk & Compliance

I think it worked realllly well at my previous company where we used it for a very simple form that just required one simple signature from both sides- this was a form used to record custom pricing/discounts for a product that typically was not discounted. In my current role, there are many more required fields on the form/contract, and can be multiple levels of approvals on one side, and then possibly multiple levels of approvals/signatures on the other side. I've never used another solution in the exact same way (like DocuSign) to be able to compare experiences, but on Ironclad, understanding where I am in the completion process can be confusing. Within the app, I wish it was more of just a checklist or schedule of what needs to happen, but it's not written out that clearly. Lastly, there is something wrong with our notifications (I'm not sure if this is specific to my company's settings)- I frequently get 'contract completed' or 'contract signed' email notifications even if that hasn't occurred. They seem to correlate with updating the form or refreshing the sync from SFDC.

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

• Keep track of legal documents versions
• Approve legal workflows
• Forward email threads to the legal workflow

Incentivized

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

• Contract link feature in the case of amendment/addendum.
• Auto document retention feature (expiration and deletion).

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

Ironclad is the best tool I have used to date, to manage workflow and tickets. It was very easy to use and navigate from the very first time I used it. My time is very valuable and I don't have time to sit in training sessions, simply to use a new product. I'm happy to say that I was never formally trained on Ironclad as it simply wasn't necessary.

Incentivized

I haven't used the support services for IronClad, but I understand from our legal team, the support is very good, they have replied and provide solutions quickly and effectively. I have used the documentation and support pages which are very complete and which have been updated given the user interface updates.

Incentivized

Miles ahead of LinkSquares

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.

• At Gusto, where we operated on no contracts for many years, Ironclad allowed us to create a very simple process for getting approval for, and keeping records of, customized pricing on our new, high-end plan.
• Wasn't part of the buying committee, but in my current role it's been heavily utilized externally for customer contracts, but also internally for employee agreements.
• I don't have any actual numbers, and don't have a way to compare it to any prior e-signature setup.

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

Incentivized