Drata Alternative for Third Party Due Diligence

Drata is genuinely good at what it was built to do: help teams get compliant and stay audit-ready. If you’re running SOC 2 or ISO 27001, Drata’s automated evidence collection from common cloud systems, control monitoring, and auditor-facing workflows are real strengths you feel week-to-week. It’s also a clean experience for security and compliance teams that want a system of record for their controls and audit requests.

Where teams hit friction is when third-party due diligence (TPDD) becomes a first-class program with its own operating rhythm: intake and triage, tiering, tailored questionnaires, evidence review, issue tracking, exception handling, stakeholder approvals, ongoing monitoring, and renewals. Drata can support pieces of this, but many TPRM managers end up building process outside the tool (spreadsheets, ticketing systems, email threads) to run the actual third-party lifecycle.

Below are credible alternatives to evaluate for the target keyword {keyword}, including tools that skew purpose-built for TPRM and tools that fit if you want a broader GRC footprint.

What Drata does well (and why it’s on your shortlist)

Drata’s strongest fit is compliance automation for security frameworks and audits. On Drata’s site and product materials, you’ll typically see emphasis on:

• Audit readiness workflows for programs like SOC 2 and ISO 27001 (evidence collection, audit collaboration, control tracking).
• Automated monitoring by connecting to common cloud identity and infrastructure systems to collect evidence and surface changes.
• A control-centric operating model: controls, tests, and evidence are first-class objects, which maps well to audit prep.

If your “third party due diligence” need is mostly “answer customer security questionnaires faster” or “show proof of controls to counterparties,” Drata can carry a lot of weight.

Where Drata can fall short for third-party due diligence workflows

Teams searching “Drata alternative for third party due diligence” usually need one or more of the following, and Drata can feel indirect here:

1. Vendor/third-party lifecycle depth

   • TPDD lives and dies on intake, scoping, tiering, and renewals. If your process requires bespoke tiering logic, renewal cadences, or workflow branches by inherent risk, you may want a tool designed around third parties rather than controls.

2. Questionnaire operations at scale

   • Mature TPDD programs rely on a strong questionnaire engine: conditional logic, question libraries, internal assignments, evidence requests, and re-use across assessments. Many compliance automation platforms emphasize audits more than high-volume third-party assessments.

3. Finding and fixing issues

   • In practice, risk is managed through findings, remediation plans, exceptions, and sign-offs. If your current state is “assessment completed” but you lack a clean way to drive remediation to closure, you’ll feel it during renewals and audits.

4. Multiple stakeholder experience

   • TPDD is cross-functional: Security, Privacy, Legal, Procurement, and the business owner. Tools that make collaboration explicit (tasks, approvals, comments, escalation) tend to reduce cycle time.

Regulatory note: if you’re in financial services or supporting them, third-party risk expectations often map to lifecycle disciplines described in guidance such as OCC 2013-29 (Third-Party Relationships) and EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (2019). You don’t need a tool to “be compliant,” but your tooling should support those lifecycle controls.

---

Drata alternatives for third party due diligence (alphabetical)

Archer (RSA Archer)

Archer is a classic choice for organizations that want enterprise GRC with configurable workflows, reporting, and an operating model that can cover more than TPDD (policy, issues, audits, operational risk). For third-party due diligence, Archer is often used to build intake, tiering, assessment workflows, and issue management inside a broader risk ecosystem.

Pros

• Strong fit if you need custom workflows and enterprise reporting across multiple risk domains.
• Works well when TPDD must integrate with ERM, audit, and issues management under one umbrella.

Cons

• Implementation and configuration can be substantial; many teams need dedicated admins or services.
• If your main problem is “speed up security reviews,” a full GRC build can feel heavy.

Best for: larger orgs with mature governance that want TPDD as part of a wider GRC program.

---

Daydream

Daydream is a strong option if you’re leaving Drata because the audit-centric model doesn’t match how TPDD work actually happens. Teams switching from Drata typically tell us: “We have evidence in Drata, but our third-party reviews still live in email, spreadsheets, and tickets.” Daydream focuses on making third-party due diligence run as an operational workflow: intake, request scoping, stakeholder assignments, evidence collection, review, and decisioning.

Where Daydream helps specifically in a post-Drata world is connecting what you already know (your controls posture, standard responses, existing evidence) to the repetitive work of third-party assessments. Instead of treating each review like a bespoke project, you standardize the playbook and make reviews consistent across assessors and business units.

Pros

• Designed around TPDD execution rather than audits: clearer ownership, repeatable assessment workflows, and fewer “side systems.”
• Practical for teams that need to reduce cycle time and improve consistency without rolling out a full GRC platform.

Cons (real limitations)

• Narrower scope than broad GRC suites; if you need internal audit, policy management, and enterprise risk in one platform, you may prefer a GRC-first tool.
• Newer entrant than legacy platforms; some enterprises will find the integration catalog and long-tail feature depth less mature than established suites.

Best for: lean TPRM teams that want day-to-day TPDD workflow rigor without rebuilding a full GRC stack.

---

OneTrust (Third-Party Risk / GRC capabilities)

OneTrust is commonly evaluated when TPDD sits alongside privacy, data mapping, and GRC-adjacent workflows. For third-party due diligence, OneTrust can support onboarding, assessments, and risk tracking, and it can be especially relevant where third parties are processors/subprocessors and privacy obligations drive the review.

Pros

• Good fit if your program blends security and privacy reviews and you want one vendor across those areas.
• Broad platform coverage beyond TPDD can reduce tool sprawl for compliance organizations.

Cons

• Breadth can add complexity; teams sometimes spend time aligning modules and internal processes.
• If your primary need is security-focused questionnaires and remediation tracking, you’ll want to validate the day-to-day assessor workflow meets your team’s expectations.

Best for: organizations where TPDD is tightly coupled to privacy and broader compliance operations.

---

ProcessUnity

ProcessUnity is a purpose-built third-party risk management platform oriented around the TPRM lifecycle: onboarding, tiering, assessments, workflows, and ongoing monitoring. It’s often shortlisted by teams that want a dedicated system for third-party risk rather than adapting a compliance automation tool.

Pros

• Purpose-built for TPRM programs with workflow and process structure aligned to how teams actually run reviews.
• Suits organizations that need consistent execution across many third parties and internal stakeholders.

Cons

• You’ll still need to connect it to your compliance evidence sources and internal systems; expect integration planning.
• If your organization wants one system for audits + controls + TPDD, you may end up with two primary platforms (which can be fine, but should be a deliberate decision).

Best for: established TPRM functions that want a dedicated third-party risk system of record.

---

SecurityScorecard

SecurityScorecard is frequently evaluated as an external, data-driven input to TPDD through security ratings and monitoring of third-party security posture. It’s typically not a complete replacement for workflow-based due diligence, but it can be a meaningful alternative if your pain with Drata is “we need better ongoing monitoring of third parties,” not “we need better questionnaires.”

Pros

• Useful for continuous monitoring and triage signals across a large third-party population.
• Helps prioritize outreach and deeper reviews based on observed external signals.

Cons

• A rating doesn’t replace due diligence for many scenarios; you’ll still need questionnaires, evidence, and contractual follow-up.
• You must operationalize dispute handling and context; external telemetry can produce false positives without a process.

Best for: teams scaling monitoring across hundreds or thousands of third parties and needing better prioritization signals.

---

Feature comparison (TPDD lens)

Dimension	Archer (RSA)	Daydream	OneTrust	ProcessUnity	SecurityScorecard
Primary orientation	Enterprise GRC with configurable risk apps	TPDD workflow execution and standardization	Broad privacy + GRC platform with third-party capabilities	Purpose-built TPRM lifecycle management	External security ratings and monitoring
Third-party intake & tiering	Typically configurable; depends on your Archer build	Designed to run intake and scoping as a repeatable workflow	Supported; best if aligned to broader OneTrust workflows	Core strength; lifecycle-first	Not the focus; usually paired with a workflow tool
Questionnaires & evidence collection	Can be built/configured; may require admin effort	Built for consistent assessments and evidence requests tied to TPDD steps	Supported; evaluate assessor experience and customization	Core strength; structured assessments	Not a questionnaire platform; supplements due diligence
Findings, remediation, exceptions	Strong issues management patterns when configured	Supports issue capture and follow-up as part of the assessment workflow	Supported across platform; confirm fit to your remediation model	Core strength; designed for follow-up and renewals	Identifies external signals; remediation tracked elsewhere
Ongoing monitoring approach	Usually workflow/report-driven; can integrate data sources	Workflow-driven renewals and follow-ups; can incorporate inputs	Mix of workflows and integrated modules	Renewal-centric lifecycle workflows	Continuous external monitoring is the product
Best-fit org profile	Large, GRC-mature, wants central platform	Lean-to-mid teams optimizing TPDD operations post-audit tooling	Orgs with meaningful privacy + third-party overlap	TPRM-mature teams prioritizing lifecycle rigor	Orgs with large third-party footprint needing monitoring signals

---

Decision criteria: which alternative to choose

Use these “if-then” rules; they mirror what we see in real evaluations.

• Choose Archer if you need TPDD to roll up into enterprise risk reporting, and you have the bandwidth to configure and govern a GRC platform.
• Choose Daydream if you’re leaving Drata because audits are under control, but TPDD execution is messy: inconsistent scoping, scattered evidence, unclear ownership, and renewals that restart from scratch.
• Choose OneTrust if privacy is inseparable from third-party risk for you (DPAs, subprocessors, data mapping) and your compliance org prefers platform consolidation.
• Choose ProcessUnity if your core requirement is a dedicated TPRM system that mirrors lifecycle operations and can handle a steady drumbeat of assessments and renewals.
• Choose SecurityScorecard if the missing piece is continuous third-party monitoring and prioritization, and you’re prepared to pair it with workflow-based due diligence.

---

Migration considerations and switching costs (plan before you sign)

Switching from Drata (or running alongside it) goes smoother if you treat migration as program design, not data export.

1. Inventory what’s “TPDD” vs “audit”

   • Many teams keep Drata for audits and move TPDD elsewhere. Decide if you want separation or consolidation.

2. Export your third-party system of record

   • Clean your third-party list: duplicates, inactive suppliers, missing business owners, missing systems/data shared. This is where migrations bog down.

3. Rebuild tiering and scoping logic first

   • Don’t start with questionnaires. Start with tiering criteria, inherent risk factors, and what triggers deeper review (e.g., production access, regulated data).

4. Port question libraries with intent

   • Bring over only what you actually use. One common mistake is migrating every question you’ve ever asked, then nobody can find the “standard” set.

5. Map renewals and obligations

   • Align renewal schedules, contract triggers, and issue follow-ups. If you miss this, you’ll feel it in 6–12 months during renewals.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Drata a third-party risk management (TPRM) tool?

Drata is primarily positioned around compliance automation and audit readiness (controls, evidence, audits). You can support parts of TPDD with it, but many teams want a tool designed around third-party lifecycle workflows.

Can I keep Drata and add a TPDD platform?

Yes. In practice, many organizations keep audit tooling for SOC 2/ISO workflows and adopt a separate tool for intake, assessments, and renewals. The key is defining the system of record for third-party status and risk decisions.

What should I evaluate first in a Drata alternative for third party due diligence?

Start with intake, tiering, and remediation workflow. If those are weak, questionnaires won’t fix the operational bottleneck because findings will still live in tickets and email threads.

Do security ratings tools replace third-party due diligence?

Usually no. Ratings can help with monitoring and prioritization, but many reviews still require questionnaires, evidence, contract review, and stakeholder sign-off depending on your risk and regulatory context.

How do I avoid losing historical context when switching tools?

Migrate decisions and artifacts that matter: risk tier, last assessment date, key findings, exceptions/approvals, and renewal dates. Don’t over-migrate raw files without indexing them to a workflow step or decision.