Archer Alternative for Third Party Due Diligence

If you’re looking for an Archer alternative for third party due diligence, your best options depend on whether you want a configurable enterprise GRC, a purpose-built third-party risk platform, or a faster workflow layer that reduces assessment friction. Archer remains excellent for complex governance and audit programs, but many teams outgrow its TPDD usability and speed.

Key takeaways:

• Archer is strong for configurable enterprise risk, controls, and audit workflows, but TPDD teams often struggle with assessor experience and time-to-value.
• Purpose-built TPRM tools can simplify intake, assessments, evidence handling, and monitoring without the overhead of a full GRC build.
• Switching costs are real; success hinges on data migration, workflow redesign, and stakeholder change management, not just feature parity.

Archer (RSA Archer) earns its reputation in large enterprises because it can be configured to model complex risk and compliance programs, align controls to frameworks, manage issues and remediation, and support audit-ready reporting across multiple lines of defense. If your world includes enterprise risk registers, control libraries, policy management, audit workpapers, and integrated governance workflows, Archer can act as a central system of record with deep configurability.

Teams searching “Archer alternative for third party due diligence” are usually not saying Archer is “bad.” They’re saying the third-party due diligence (TPDD) experience feels heavier than it should. In practice, we see common friction points: intake that requires too many fields, assessments that are hard for third parties to complete, evidence that lives in attachments without enough structure, and workflow changes that require specialized admin effort. Some organizations also find that building a modern TPDD program inside a configurable GRC platform takes longer than expected, especially if the TPRM team doesn’t control the platform roadmap.

Below is an options-focused guide for compliance and TPRM leaders evaluating alternatives, including where each tool tends to fit and what switching from Archer really entails.

What Archer does well for TPDD (and why teams still respect it)

Archer’s core strengths show up most in mature environments:

• Configurable applications and workflows: Many organizations use Archer to model their internal risk taxonomy, approval flows, and issue management processes in a way that matches how the business actually runs.
• Cross-program visibility: If your third-party risk program needs to tie into enterprise risk, audit, operational risk, or compliance testing, a GRC backbone can reduce duplication.
• Reporting and governance alignment: Archer is commonly used as a system of record to support audit requests, management reporting, and consistent process documentation.

For TPDD specifically, that configurability can be a benefit if you have a unique methodology, multiple assessment types, or heavily customized scoping logic.

Where Archer often falls short specifically for third-party due diligence workflows

These are the gaps TPRM managers and compliance officers most often cite when evaluating an Archer alternative for third party due diligence:

1. TPDD user experience for third parties and internal reviewers

   • External questionnaires and evidence collection can feel “enterprise internal,” not “supplier-friendly.”
   • If completion is painful, you get delays, partial responses, and more back-and-forth email.

2. Time-to-change and time-to-value

   • Updating questionnaires, branching logic, workflows, and dashboards can require specialized admin/config resources.
   • Many TPRM teams end up waiting in a platform backlog.

3. Evidence handling and review ergonomics

   • Attachments are not the same as structured evidence. Review teams want fast triage: what changed, what’s missing, what’s stale, what maps to which requirement.

4. Purpose-built TPDD depth vs. broad GRC breadth

   • Archer can do many things across GRC. TPDD teams sometimes want deeper “last-mile” capabilities for intake, scoping, outreach, and monitoring without building each piece.

If those pain points sound familiar, the alternatives below are worth a structured evaluation.

---

Archer alternatives (alphabetical)

AuditBoard

AuditBoard is widely known for audit, SOX, and broader GRC workflows, with modules that organizations use to connect risk, controls, and assurance activities. For TPDD teams that want tight coordination between vendor/third-party risk work and internal audit or controls testing, AuditBoard often appeals because the collaboration model and workpaper-style workflows can match how assurance teams operate.

Where it can fit well: organizations that want a connected story between risks, controls, issues, and assurance work, and prefer a modern UI compared to legacy GRC experiences.

Tradeoffs to watch:

• If your TPDD program needs highly specialized third-party intake, outreach, and evidence chasing at scale, you’ll want to validate how much is native vs. what you must build/configure.
• Some teams end up with good internal workflows but still need to optimize the “third party-facing” experience (questionnaire completion, evidence submission, clarifications).

Daydream

I’m Isaac Silverman, founder of Daydream. Teams moving off Archer for third party due diligence usually tell us a similar story: Archer is a powerful system of record, but their TPDD workflow is slowed down by configuration cycles, heavy forms, and evidence reviews that don’t feel streamlined for how third-party assessments actually happen week to week.

Daydream is designed to reduce that friction in the TPDD layer: intake, scoping, assessments, and the review loop with third parties. Where this matters for Archer switchers is speed of iteration. If your questionnaire set and your evidence expectations evolve quarter to quarter, you need a workflow you can adjust without a long admin queue. In our experience, the win is faster turnaround on assessments and fewer “where do I upload this?” threads.

Daydream cons (real limitations):

• Daydream is not a full enterprise GRC suite. If you rely on Archer for ERM, internal controls, policy management, and audit in one place, you may still need a broader GRC platform.
• Daydream is a newer entrant, with a smaller installed base than legacy platforms. Some enterprise buyers require long reference lists and very specific integration catalogs.

OneTrust

OneTrust is commonly adopted for privacy, data governance, and related compliance workflows, and many organizations extend it into third-party assessment processes that touch data processing, DPIAs, and vendor privacy reviews. If your “TPDD” program is driven heavily by privacy requirements and data mapping, OneTrust can provide a cohesive way to operationalize those workflows and document decisions.

Where it can fit well: privacy-led third party diligence, vendor onboarding where data processing is central, and programs that need strong linkage between third parties and privacy artifacts.

Tradeoffs to watch:

• If your TPDD scope is broader than privacy (security controls, SOC report review workflows, financial viability, resiliency), confirm you can support the full assessment methodology without over-customization.
• Teams that want a security-first, assessment-at-scale motion should test third-party questionnaire UX and evidence review flow carefully.

ProcessUnity

ProcessUnity is purpose-built for third-party risk management and is often evaluated by teams that want structured workflows for onboarding, risk tiering, assessments, issues, and ongoing monitoring. Compared with a general configurable GRC platform, the value is typically in having common TPRM program building blocks available out of the box.

Where it can fit well: mature TPRM teams that want a dedicated platform for end-to-end third-party risk workflows and prefer not to build TPDD from raw components.

Tradeoffs to watch:

• Validate flexibility for your specific methodology (questionnaire logic, risk scoring, exception paths) so you don’t trade Archer’s configurability for rigidity.
• If your organization expects one platform to run enterprise risk and audit as well, you may still need to integrate with a broader GRC backbone.

ServiceNow (GRC / Integrated Risk Management)

ServiceNow’s risk and compliance capabilities are often chosen by organizations already standardized on ServiceNow for ITSM and enterprise workflow automation. For TPDD, the differentiator is frequently workflow orchestration: routing tasks, approvals, and remediation into the same ecosystem where IT and security teams already operate.

Where it can fit well: enterprises with strong ServiceNow adoption that want third-party risk tasks to flow into operational teams with minimal context switching.

Tradeoffs to watch:

• ServiceNow can be highly configurable, but that also means TPDD success depends on design and implementation quality. You’ll want a clear blueprint for intake, assessment, evidence, and remediation.
• If your priority is a specialized TPDD assessor experience with minimal build, confirm how much is native vs. how much requires configuration or partner work.

---

Feature comparison (descriptive, TPDD-focused)

Dimension	AuditBoard	Daydream	OneTrust	ProcessUnity	ServiceNow (IRM/GRC)
Best-fit TPDD use case	TPDD aligned tightly with audit/controls collaboration	Fast-moving TPDD teams that want smoother intake, assessment, and review cycles	Privacy- and data-processing-led third party diligence	Dedicated TPRM program operations (tiering, assessments, issues, monitoring)	Workflow-driven TPDD tied to IT/security operations
Questionnaires & assessments	Supports assessment workflows, often oriented to internal assurance patterns	Designed for practical assessment execution and iteration speed	Strong for privacy assessments and related artifacts	Purpose-built third-party assessments with TPRM structure	Can support assessments via configurable workflows and forms
Evidence collection & review	Documented review processes; confirm reviewer ergonomics for TPDD	Emphasis on reducing evidence back-and-forth and making reviews easier	Often centered around privacy evidence and processing disclosures	TPRM-oriented evidence and findings workflows	Evidence and tasks can be routed into operational queues
Workflow configurability	Configurable within its platform model	Configurable for TPDD workflows, not intended to replace full GRC configuration	Configurable for privacy/compliance workflows	Configurable within TPRM constructs	Highly configurable workflow engine; design matters
Broader GRC coverage	Strong audit and risk adjacency	Narrower scope: TPDD-focused rather than enterprise GRC	Broad privacy/compliance governance footprint	Focused on third-party risk	Broad enterprise workflow and IRM footprint

---

Decision criteria: when to choose which option

Use these selection rules we apply in real evaluations:

1. Choose AuditBoard if your TPDD program is closely coupled to internal audit, SOX, or control testing workflows, and you want strong collaboration and governance artifacts in the same environment.

2. Choose Daydream if Archer’s pain for you is execution speed: too much admin dependency, too much friction for third parties completing due diligence, and too much time lost in evidence chasing and review loops. Keep Archer (or another GRC) for enterprise governance if needed, and modernize the TPDD motion.

3. Choose OneTrust if privacy and data processing drive your third-party diligence requirements and you want DPIA-style work, data mapping, and vendor privacy assessments to live together. This fits well where the privacy office owns vendor diligence.

4. Choose ProcessUnity if you want a purpose-built TPRM platform that “speaks TPRM” out of the box: tiering, onboarding, inherent/residual risk workflows, and ongoing oversight.

5. Choose ServiceNow if your organization runs on ServiceNow and you want TPDD tasks, remediation, and approvals to flow directly into the operational systems used by IT and security teams.

Regulatory context matters. If you’re in financial services, your TPDD program will likely need to support expectations around third-party oversight and ongoing monitoring described in OCC 2021-29 (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 2021) and the Federal Reserve SR 13-19 (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2013). Those documents do not mandate a specific tool, but they raise the bar on documentation, governance, and repeatability.

---

Migration considerations and switching costs (Archer → alternative)

Switching off Archer for third party due diligence is rarely a “lift and shift.” Plan for these workstreams:

1. Data model mapping

   • Third parties, engagements, services, risk tiers, questionnaires, issues, and remediation items often exist across multiple Archer apps. Decide what becomes the system of record.

2. Questionnaire rationalization

   • Most teams carry too many legacy questions. Before migrating, cut duplicates, define authoritative question sets, and set rules for exceptions.

3. Evidence library strategy

   • Decide what you migrate (current evidence only vs. full history). Document retention needs should be agreed with Legal/Compliance.

4. Workflow redesign

   • Replicate approvals sparingly. A common mistake is recreating every Archer state and status instead of simplifying for cycle time.

5. Parallel run and audit readiness

   • Keep Archer read-only for a period if you need historical defensibility. Define how you respond to audit requests during transition.

---

Practitioner checklist: evaluating an Archer alternative for third party due diligence

• Can a third party complete an assessment without training?
• Can you change scoping or questionnaires without a platform admin queue?
• How are findings/risks created, tracked, and tied to remediation?
• What does ongoing monitoring look like in the product’s model?
• Can you produce evidence for auditors quickly: decision trail, approvals, timestamps, and artifacts?

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do teams replace Archer for third party due diligence if Archer is configurable?

Configurable often means “change requires specialized effort.” Teams switch when TPDD cycle time, third-party completion rates, and evidence review throughput matter more than modeling every edge case.

Can we keep Archer and add a TPDD tool alongside it?

Yes. Many organizations keep Archer as the enterprise GRC system of record and add a TPDD-focused tool for intake, assessments, and evidence workflows, then sync key outputs back.

What’s the biggest hidden cost in switching from Archer?

Rebuilding your operating model. Data migration is work, but the harder part is agreeing on the future-state workflow, ownership, and what “done” means for each assessment.

How should we evaluate “ongoing monitoring” claims from vendors?

Ask for a demo of what triggers a review, how alerts become tasks, and how decisions are documented. You want to see the full loop from signal → triage → action → audit trail.

What should we validate in proof-of-concept (POC) for TPDD tools?

Run one high-risk third party end-to-end: intake, scoping, questionnaire completion, evidence request, reviewer comments, findings, remediation, and executive reporting. Time each step and capture user feedback from both internal reviewers and the third party.