Diligent Alternative for Third Party Due Diligence

Diligent does several things genuinely well for third-party due diligence programs, especially if you already run board governance, audit, or risk workflows in the Diligent ecosystem. On their site, Diligent positions its products around governance, risk, audit, and compliance, with structured workflows, reporting, and oversight that resonate with compliance leaders who need executive visibility and repeatable controls.

Where teams start searching “Diligent alternative” is usually less about distrust and more about fit. In our experience, the friction shows up in the day-to-day third-party due diligence (TPDD) mechanics: faster intake and scoping, tighter questionnaire management, evidence follow-up, continuous monitoring signals, and getting clean reporting by third party, service, product, and data type without heavy admin work.

Below is a practitioner-focused view of credible alternatives for {keyword}. The goal is not to “bash” Diligent. It’s to help you match tooling to your program maturity, regulatory environment, and the reality that third-party due diligence lives or dies on throughput and auditability.

What Diligent does well for third-party due diligence

Based on Diligent’s positioning and published materials, teams often pick Diligent when they want:

• Cross-functional governance alignment: risk, audit, compliance, and leadership reporting in a single ecosystem ¹.
• Workflow standardization: consistent processes, assignments, and documentation patterns across multiple risk domains.
• Executive-friendly reporting: dashboarding and rollups that support oversight conversations rather than only practitioner-level task lists.

If you’re a Compliance Officer who needs your TPDD story to connect to broader governance and assurance, Diligent’s strengths tend to map well.

Where Diligent can fall short for TPDD workflows

Teams evaluating a Diligent alternative for third-party due diligence typically want improvements in a few practical areas:

1. TPDD throughput and “last mile” execution

• Programs spend most of their time chasing third parties for answers, clarifying “N/A” responses, and collecting evidence. Tools optimized for governance may feel heavier than needed for that daily motion.

2. Questionnaire ops and evidence collection

• Some teams want more specialized questionnaire logic, tighter evidence request workflows, and clearer status transparency for internal stakeholders and third parties.

3. Ongoing monitoring and change detection

• TPDD programs increasingly expect monitoring signals (security posture, financial, sanctions/adverse media screening, etc.). Depending on how you’ve implemented Diligent, you may find the monitoring layer requires add-ons, integrations, or extra configuration.

4. TPRM-first data model

• If your program is organized around third-party relationships, services, fourth parties, data processing, and inherent/residual risk, you may prefer a TPRM-native schema over a generalized GRC object model.

None of these are universal failures. They’re common reasons a TPRM Manager starts shortlisting alternatives.

---

Alternatives to Diligent for Third Party Due Diligence (alphabetical)

Archer (RSA Archer)

What it is: Archer is a well-known GRC platform used to build and run risk and compliance use cases, including third-party risk, via configurable applications and workflows ².

Why teams choose it: Archer fits organizations that need high configurability and want third-party risk managed alongside enterprise risk, policy, controls, issues, and audit evidence. If you have a mature GRC admin function, Archer can be shaped to your TPDD taxonomy, approvals, and reporting structure.

Pros (TPDD context):

• Flexible configuration for unique due diligence processes and complex approval chains.
• Works well when third-party risk must align tightly to enterprise risk and control libraries.

Cons (TPDD context):

• Implementation and ongoing admin can be heavy; many teams need dedicated Archer expertise.
• “TPDD operator experience” can lag purpose-built tools if your configuration isn’t carefully designed.

Best fit: Large enterprises with formal GRC administration and complex workflow requirements.

---

Daydream

What it is: Daydream is focused on making third-party due diligence execution faster and easier to run: intake, scoping, questionnaires, evidence collection, and clean, audit-ready outputs for stakeholders.

Why a team leaving Diligent may prefer it: Teams coming from Diligent often tell us the pain isn’t “we can’t store third-party risk data,” it’s the work to move assessments forward. Daydream is built around the practitioner loop: define the scope for a third party, request what you need once, track what’s missing, and keep the program moving without turning every due diligence cycle into a mini-implementation project. If Diligent has felt like a broader governance layer and you want a sharper TPDD engine for security/compliance reviews, Daydream’s approach tends to map to that gap.

Pros (TPDD context):

• Designed around the operational reality of TPDD: scoping, requests, follow-ups, and packaging results for internal review.
• Strong fit for teams that need faster cycle times and less manual coordination across email and spreadsheets.

Cons (real limitations):

• Not a full GRC suite; if you need internal audit management, policy management, and enterprise controls testing in the same system, you may need another platform.
• Newer entrant than legacy GRC vendors; some enterprises may require a longer validation cycle for vendor onboarding and may find fewer pre-built integrations than large suites.

Best fit: Mid-market to enterprise teams that want a purpose-built TPDD workflow layer, especially where Diligent feels too broad for the day-to-day due diligence grind.

---

OneTrust (Third-Party Risk Management)

What it is: OneTrust provides risk and compliance tooling with dedicated capabilities for third-party risk management, commonly adjacent to privacy, security, and GRC workflows ³.

Why teams choose it: OneTrust often works well for organizations that treat third-party risk as part of a broader trust program (privacy + security + compliance). If your due diligence must incorporate privacy assessments (for example, DPIAs/PIAs) alongside security reviews, OneTrust can reduce tool sprawl.

Pros (TPDD context):

• Good alignment across privacy and third-party workflows for teams that run combined reviews.
• Broad platform that can support multiple compliance workstreams beyond TPDD.

Cons (TPDD context):

• Breadth can mean more configuration decisions; teams without a clear operating model may struggle to keep workflows simple.
• If you only need TPDD, the broader platform footprint may feel like overhead.

Best fit: Teams running combined privacy/security third-party assessments and wanting a single platform for trust workflows.

---

Prevalent

What it is: Prevalent is a third-party risk management platform known for combining software workflows with services and a vendor network approach ⁴.

Why teams choose it: Prevalent tends to appeal to programs that want help scaling: distributing questionnaires, collecting evidence, and maintaining current profiles without every assessment starting from scratch.

Pros (TPDD context):

• Structured approach to third-party onboarding, assessments, and ongoing management.
• Service components can help when your internal team is small relative to third-party volume.

Cons (TPDD context):

• Network-based approaches can be uneven depending on whether your third parties participate or have current artifacts.
• Some teams still need to tailor assessments heavily for high-risk third parties, which can reduce standardization benefits.

Best fit: Lean TPRM teams with high vendor volume that want platform + support to scale throughput.

---

SecurityScorecard

What it is: SecurityScorecard is known for external security ratings and third-party cyber risk monitoring ⁵.

Why teams choose it: If your core pain is ongoing monitoring and getting a defensible view of external security posture across many third parties, SecurityScorecard can be a strong complement or anchor tool. Many programs pair monitoring with separate workflows for questionnaires and evidence.

Pros (TPDD context):

• Continuous visibility into external security signals for third parties, useful for prioritization and triggering reviews.
• Helpful for building a risk-based tiering and reassessment cadence.

Cons (TPDD context):

• Security ratings don’t replace due diligence evidence for many regulated programs; you may still need questionnaires, SOC reports, and contract reviews.
• Best results require process definition for how ratings drive actions, exceptions, and escalation.

Best fit: Security-led third-party programs prioritizing continuous monitoring and cyber posture triage.

---

Feature comparison (TPDD-oriented)

Dimension	Archer (RSA Archer)	Daydream	OneTrust TPRM	Prevalent	SecurityScorecard
Primary center of gravity	Configurable enterprise GRC platform	TPDD execution workflow (intake → scope → assess → evidence → outputs)	Multi-domain trust platform (privacy + risk + third party)	TPRM workflows plus supporting services/network	External cyber risk monitoring and ratings
Questionnaire management	Typically configured; depends on your build	Built for repeated assessment operations and follow-ups	Supports third-party assessments; often part of broader workflows	Core strength; built around scaling assessments	Not the focus; used alongside another tool
Evidence collection & audit trail	Strong if implemented well; admin-dependent	Designed to make evidence requests/status auditable and easy to track	Available; may require design decisions to avoid workflow sprawl	Strong operational support; may be aided by services	Limited to evidence relevant to monitoring context
Ongoing monitoring	Possible via integrations and design	Program-dependent; often paired with monitoring sources	Available across platform capabilities	Often part of managed approach	Core capability: continuous external signals
Best for	Large, complex enterprises with GRC admins	Teams that want a sharper TPDD “engine” than a governance suite	Programs combining privacy and third-party risk	Lean teams needing help scaling	Security teams focused on cyber posture monitoring

---

Decision criteria: which alternative to choose

Use these selection rules in your shortlist workshops:

1. If you need a configurable enterprise GRC backbone (complex workflows, many internal stakeholders, shared control libraries): choose Archer.

2. If Diligent felt like a governance suite and your pain is execution speed (intake, scoping, evidence chase-down, packaging results): choose Daydream.

3. If privacy assessments are inseparable from third-party due diligence and you want one system of record for both: choose OneTrust.

4. If your team is small relative to third-party volume and you want platform plus operational support: choose Prevalent.

5. If continuous cyber monitoring is the headline requirement and you already have a workflow tool (or plan to add one): choose SecurityScorecard.

Regulatory context note: If you map your program to banking expectations around third-party relationships, the OCC’s third-party relationships guidance (OCC, 2013) is a common reference point for lifecycle thinking (planning, due diligence, contract, ongoing monitoring). Your tool should make those lifecycle artifacts easy to produce on demand.

---

Migration considerations and switching costs (what actually bites)

Switching TPDD tooling is rarely “just export/import.”

1. Normalize your third-party inventory first

• Decide what a “third party record” is: legal entity, product, engagement, or service. Misalignment here causes bad reporting later.

2. Rebuild tiering and scoping logic intentionally

• If you keep your old tiers and questionnaires blindly, you carry forward the same friction. Most teams should revisit triggers (data sensitivity, access, criticality, subcontractors).

3. Plan for evidence library hygiene

• Migrating every artifact creates clutter. Move only what you need for active/recurring relationships plus what audit expects.

4. Expect parallel run

• Run one cycle in the new tool while closing out in the old. That reduces audit gaps and helps you refine workflows before you flip fully.

5. Integration work is optional, not day-one

• Start with the minimum: SSO, ticketing intake, and your system of record for third-party inventory. Add monitoring and GRC integrations after the core process is stable.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should I replace first if I’m moving off Diligent for TPDD?

Replace the execution layer first: intake, scoping, questionnaires, and evidence tracking. Keep your existing reporting cadence and artifacts until the new workflow produces equivalent audit outputs.

Can I keep Diligent for governance and use another tool for due diligence execution?

Yes. Many teams separate board-level governance reporting from TPDD operations. The key is a clean handoff: what fields and artifacts must sync, and who owns the system of record.

Do security ratings tools replace questionnaires and SOC reports?

Usually no. Ratings can help you prioritize and monitor, but many programs still need evidence like SOC 2 reports, ISO certificates, and responses to control questions, based on your policy and contracts.

What’s the biggest hidden switching cost?

Process redesign. Data migration is solvable, but getting agreement on tiering, scoping, and what “done” means for each risk domain takes time and cross-functional alignment.

How do I compare tools without getting lost in feature checklists?

Run a time-boxed pilot with 5–10 real third parties across risk tiers. Measure cycle time, rework, evidence completeness, and stakeholder satisfaction with the final due diligence package.

Footnotes

1. Diligent’s governance/risk/audit product messaging on their website

2. Archer’s product messaging and documentation

3. OneTrust’s published product portfolio

4. Prevalent’s product and services descriptions

5. SecurityScorecard’s public product materials