AuditBoard Alternative for Third Party Due Diligence

AuditBoard earns its reputation. On its website, AuditBoard positions itself around connected risk, audit, and compliance work, with modules spanning audit management and broader GRC needs ¹. For teams that want internal audit execution, SOX-style controls work, testing, workpapers, reporting, and cross-functional visibility in one platform, AuditBoard is often a credible default.

Where AuditBoard can feel less satisfying is when your center of gravity is third-party due diligence rather than internal controls. TPDD has its own operational realities: high-volume onboarding, repeated evidence requests, security questionnaires, document chasing, refresh cycles, tiering, exception handling, and stakeholder handoffs between procurement, security, privacy, legal, and the business. Many teams using broad GRC platforms end up compensating with custom objects, extra fields, and parallel trackers to keep reviews moving.

Below is a practitioner-oriented guide to AuditBoard alternatives for TPDD, including when to choose each tool, what migration really looks like, and how to avoid “new tool, same bottlenecks.”

What AuditBoard does well (and why teams still like it)

AuditBoard’s strengths show up when your program spans more than third-party risk:

• Audit and assurance execution: Audit management, planning, fieldwork, workpapers, and reporting are core to AuditBoard’s market position ¹.
• Connected GRC model: Teams often value having risks, controls, issues, and remediation in a shared system rather than scattered across spreadsheets and point tools ¹.
• Standardization and governance: For organizations that need consistent workflows and defensible audit trails across many compliance motions, a platform approach can reduce fragmentation.

If your TPDD work is tightly coupled to audit testing, control validation, and enterprise reporting, AuditBoard’s “one place to run assurance” story can be compelling.

Where AuditBoard can fall short for TPDD workflows

In our experience, teams looking for an AuditBoard alternative for third party due diligence usually aren’t saying AuditBoard is “bad.” They’re reacting to fit.

Common friction points include:

1. TPDD throughput vs. GRC configuration
   Third-party reviews tend to be high-velocity. If you’re onboarding frequently, heavy configuration and rigid process design can slow cycle times.

2. Questionnaire and evidence operations
   Many programs live or die on questionnaire collection, evidence handling, and follow-up. If your team is spending too much time routing emails, reconciling versions, and tracking “what’s still missing,” you may want tooling that’s more natively centered on intake-to-decision.

3. Stakeholder experience
   Business owners, procurement, and third parties themselves need a low-friction experience. If stakeholders perceive the process as “GRC overhead,” they route around it.

4. TPDD depth vs. breadth trade-off
   AuditBoard can cover a lot of ground, but some teams want more depth in third-party workflows rather than a broad suite that requires tailoring.

Regulated programs should also sanity-check their workflow against expectations in guidance that explicitly discusses third-party relationships, such as OCC 2013-29 (third-party relationships) and the EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (2019) for EU-regulated firms.

Alternatives to AuditBoard for TPDD (alphabetical)

Archer (RSA Archer)

Best for: Large enterprises that want a highly configurable GRC platform and have admin capacity.

Archer is widely known as a configurable platform for risk and compliance use cases, including vendor/third-party risk management components ². For TPDD teams, Archer can work well when you need to model complex entities (fourth parties, services, business units), build custom workflows, and align third-party outcomes to enterprise risk reporting.

Pros

• Strong configurability for complex, multi-LOB programs ².
• Good fit if TPDD must tie into broader GRC reporting and governance structures.

Cons

• Configuration and administration can be substantial; many teams need dedicated platform owners or partners.
• Third-party user experience and questionnaire operations may require additional design and process work to feel “TPDD-native.”

Daydream

Best for: Teams leaving AuditBoard because TPDD is becoming an operational pipeline problem, not a “controls library” problem.

I’m Isaac Silverman, founder of Daydream. Teams switching off AuditBoard for TPDD typically tell us the same thing: AuditBoard is strong for audit and enterprise assurance, but their third-party due diligence work turns into a queue of tickets, email threads, and document chasing that doesn’t map cleanly to an audit-first operating model.

Daydream is built around running the third-party review as a repeatable intake-to-decision workflow: structured intake, scoping, evidence requests, reviewer handoffs, decisioning, and renewals. The goal is to reduce manual coordination and make it obvious what’s blocking approval. This approach tends to resonate if your pain is cycle time, stakeholder friction, and “where are we on this vendor?” visibility more than enterprise controls reporting.

Pros

• TPDD-centric workflow design: intake, scoping, evidence, review, decision, and refresh cycles in one place.
• Clear operational visibility for queues, blockers, and ownership, which is often what teams miss in GRC-first implementations.

Cons (real limitations)

• Daydream is not a full GRC suite; if you need internal audit management, SOX testing, and enterprise controls in the same platform, you may still want AuditBoard or another GRC.
• Newer entrant realities: smaller ecosystem and fewer prebuilt enterprise integrations than long-established GRC platforms, which can matter for complex environments.

OneTrust (Third-Party Risk / Vendor Risk Management)

Best for: Programs where TPDD is closely tied to privacy, security, and broader compliance workflows.

OneTrust markets a broad set of privacy, security, and governance capabilities, including third-party risk management ³. For TPDD, OneTrust is often considered when you want third-party assessments connected to privacy assessments, data mapping, security requirements, and internal governance artifacts in one environment.

Pros

• Broad coverage across governance areas; useful if third-party risk must connect tightly to privacy and compliance operations ³.
• Suitable when you need multiple adjacent workflows in one platform.

Cons

• Breadth can add complexity; teams sometimes spend time deciding which modules and configurations are “the program.”
• If your biggest bottleneck is fast, high-volume due diligence execution, you’ll want to validate that the third-party workflow feels streamlined for requestors and reviewers.

ProcessUnity

Best for: Dedicated TPRM teams that want structured vendor/third-party risk workflows and program governance.

ProcessUnity positions itself around vendor risk management workflows, including onboarding, risk assessments, and ongoing monitoring components ⁴. It’s a common short-list tool when the compliance team wants a TPRM-focused product rather than an audit platform, while still maintaining formal process and reporting.

Pros

• Purpose-built orientation around vendor/third-party risk workflows rather than internal audit ⁴.
• Typically aligns well to standard TPRM operating models: tiering, assessments, findings, remediation tracking.

Cons

• Depending on your internal expectations, you may still need to design strong cross-functional handoffs (procurement, security, legal) to avoid “tool done, process not done.”
• If your organization wants a single platform for audit management plus TPDD, you may end up with two systems or heavier integration work.

SecurityScorecard

Best for: Security-driven TPDD programs that want outside-in signals to triage effort.

SecurityScorecard is known for security ratings and third-party cyber risk insights, positioned as outside-in visibility into an organization’s security posture ⁵. For TPDD, it’s often used to prioritize deeper diligence, support continuous monitoring, and provide a defensible reason to escalate reviews.

Pros

• Useful for triage and monitoring across large third-party populations ⁵.
• Adds an external perspective that can complement questionnaires and document-based reviews.

Cons

• Ratings are not the same as due diligence; you still need evidence collection, control validation, and exception handling for many third parties.
• Best results usually come from pairing it with a workflow system that manages intake, questionnaires, and approvals.

Feature comparison table (TPDD lens)

Dimension	Archer (RSA Archer)	Daydream	OneTrust	ProcessUnity	SecurityScorecard
Primary orientation	Configurable enterprise GRC platform with third-party risk use cases 2	TPDD workflow execution and operational visibility	Broad governance platform spanning privacy/security/compliance with third-party risk 3	Purpose-built vendor/third-party risk program workflows 4	Outside-in cyber risk ratings and monitoring 5
Best for	Complex enterprises needing customization and central governance	Teams optimizing review cycle time and stakeholder experience after GRC friction	Orgs tying TPDD tightly to privacy and compliance workflows	Teams building a formal TPRM function with structured processes	Security teams prioritizing and monitoring large third-party populations
Questionnaire + evidence operations	Often supported via configuration and workflow design; validate fit for your process	Designed around intake-to-decision steps and tracking blockers	Available within a broad platform; validate that review flow matches your process	Built around TPRM process steps; validate third-party experience	Not the core focus; complements evidence-based reviews
Reporting and audit trail	Strong enterprise reporting potential; depends on configuration	Program operations reporting focused on queues, status, and throughput	Cross-domain reporting across modules; can be complex	TPRM reporting aligned to program management	Security posture trends and third-party monitoring outputs
Ideal deployment model	Larger teams with platform admins/partners	Lean-to-mid teams that need execution speed	Mid-to-large teams standardizing multiple governance workflows	Mid-to-large TPRM teams	Security-led programs pairing ratings with workflow tooling

Decision criteria: which alternative fits your situation

Use these “if this, then that” rules.

• Choose Archer if you have multiple lines of business, complex workflows, and you’re staffed to administer a configurable platform. It’s a fit when the goal is enterprise consistency more than speed.
• Choose Daydream if your AuditBoard pain is day-to-day TPDD execution: intake chaos, slow handoffs, unclear ownership, and renewals that slip. You’ll get the most value if you already have audit/controls covered elsewhere or don’t need them in the same tool.
• Choose OneTrust if third-party risk must connect directly to privacy and broader compliance workflows and you want that work managed in one ecosystem.
• Choose ProcessUnity if you want a TPRM-focused system that maps well to common vendor/third-party risk program structures and governance.
• Choose SecurityScorecard if security needs scalable third-party cyber signals for triage and monitoring; plan to pair it with a workflow system for evidence and approvals.

Regulatory context guidance that often shapes these choices: OCC 2013-29 (third-party relationships), EBA 2019 outsourcing guidelines, and NIST SP 800-161 (supply chain risk management) for security-driven programs.

Migration considerations and switching costs (what actually takes time)

Switching from AuditBoard (or any platform) is usually less about exporting data and more about recreating operating rhythm.

1. Data mapping: Third-party inventory fields, tiering criteria, inherent risk inputs, assessment history, issues, and renewals. Decide what to migrate versus archive.
2. Workflow redesign: Don’t port your current workflow 1:1. Keep what’s defensible; delete what’s “we added this field because the tool needed it.”
3. Evidence library strategy: Decide how you’ll store artifacts, version them, and re-use them across renewals without losing audit trail.
4. Stakeholder retraining: Business owners and procurement need a 15-minute path, not a 90-minute training. One common mistake is training only the compliance team.
5. Parallel run: For regulated environments, run old and new processes in parallel for a defined period so you can demonstrate continuity of oversight if asked.

Practitioner checklist for a smarter evaluation

• Bring 10 real third parties and replay the end-to-end process in demos: intake, scoping, questionnaire, evidence, findings, exceptions, approval, renewal.
• Test “ugly” cases: missing SOC 2, shared responsibility ambiguity, subprocessor chains, and renewal with changed scope.
• Ask what’s configurable by your team vs. what requires vendor services. Get that in writing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is AuditBoard a bad choice for third-party due diligence?

No. AuditBoard is strong for audit management and connected GRC work ¹. Teams usually look elsewhere when TPDD execution speed and third-party-facing workflow become the priority.

Should TPDD live in the same tool as internal audit and SOX?

Sometimes. If your assurance model requires tight linkage between third-party outcomes, controls testing, and audit reporting, consolidation helps. If your biggest issue is TPDD throughput, a purpose-built workflow tool can reduce friction even if audit stays elsewhere.

What’s the fastest way to compare tools for TPDD?

Run a scripted pilot with the same third parties, same questionnaire, same evidence list, and the same approval rules. Measure time-to-decision, number of handoffs, and how often reviewers get blocked waiting on artifacts.

Can security ratings replace questionnaires and evidence collection?

Not usually. Ratings can help triage and monitor, but many due diligence decisions still require contract review, control evidence, and exception handling based on your risk appetite and regulatory expectations.

What are the biggest hidden switching costs from AuditBoard?

Workflow redesign, retraining stakeholders, and deciding what historical artifacts need to remain searchable for auditability. Data export is rarely the hard part.

Footnotes

1. AuditBoard website, accessed 2026

2. RSA Archer website, accessed 2026

3. OneTrust website, accessed 2026

4. ProcessUnity website, accessed 2026

5. SecurityScorecard website, accessed 2026