Hyperproof Alternative for Third Party Due Diligence

Hyperproof earned its reputation by making audit and compliance execution easier to run day-to-day. On its website, Hyperproof positions itself around compliance operations, including mapping work to frameworks, tracking controls, collecting evidence, and supporting audit workflows. That’s genuinely valuable if your pain is “we can’t keep evidence straight” or “we need a clean story for auditors across SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / internal controls.”

Teams searching “Hyperproof alternative for third party due diligence” usually have a different pain. Third-party due diligence (TPDD) lives and dies on intake, triage, risk tiering, questionnaires, follow-ups, and time-to-approve. In practice, Hyperproof can support parts of that process, but many TPDD programs want purpose-built third-party lifecycle functionality (onboarding through offboarding), deeper vendor-centric reporting, and tighter integration with procurement and ticketing.

Below is a pragmatic breakdown of where Hyperproof tends to fit well, where it can feel “GRC-first” for TPDD, and the best alternatives to consider—listed alphabetically.

What Hyperproof does well (and why teams respect it)

Hyperproof’s strengths tend to show up in mature compliance teams that need repeatable execution:

• Control-centric compliance management: Hyperproof is known for organizing controls and evidence and mapping to common frameworks (as described on its product pages).
• Audit support workflows: Audit preparation and ongoing audit management are core to how Hyperproof is marketed and deployed.
• Visibility and accountability: Many GRC tools (including Hyperproof) emphasize assignments, tracking, and progress reporting so work doesn’t disappear in spreadsheets.

If your TPDD program is tightly coupled to audit readiness (for example, you treat third-party controls as a control family inside your broader compliance program), Hyperproof can be a reasonable anchor.

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

These gaps are the ones we most often hear from TPDD managers evaluating a Hyperproof alternative:

1. Third-party lifecycle depth: TPDD often needs a clear lifecycle model (request → triage → due diligence → remediation → approval → monitoring → reassessment). GRC-first tools can support this, but it may require more configuration and process work than TPDD teams want.
2. High-volume assessment operations: If you run many assessments per month, the bottleneck is usually chasing responses, exceptions management, and approvals. Teams often want tooling that is explicitly designed around assessment throughput, not control evidence.
3. Procurement and intake alignment: TPDD starts before diligence begins. Intake forms, routing by category, and linking to procurement or contract steps are practical requirements that may not be the “default path” in a compliance operations platform.

A helpful north star: if your biggest deliverable is an auditor-ready control and evidence picture, Hyperproof is strong. If your biggest deliverable is fast, consistent third-party approvals with defensible risk decisions, you may want a TPDD-first tool or a configurable workflow platform.

---

Alternatives (alphabetical)

AuditBoard

AuditBoard is widely used for audit management, SOX, internal audit, and broader risk work. For TPDD, it’s most compelling when your program is tightly tied to audit execution and you want third-party risk artifacts to roll up into enterprise reporting and assurance work.

Where it fits for TPDD

• Works well if you treat third-party risk as part of an enterprise risk and controls program, with consistent issue tracking and reporting.
• Strong choice for larger teams that need structured workflows and governance across multiple lines (compliance, risk, audit).

Pros

• Natural alignment with audit and assurance workflows, which helps if TPDD findings must feed audit/ERM reporting.
• Often preferred where executive reporting, standardized workpapers, and cross-team governance matter.

Cons

• Can feel heavy if your primary need is vendor questionnaires, follow-ups, and rapid approvals.
• You may spend meaningful time on configuration to match your TPDD lifecycle and intake model.

Daydream

I’m Isaac Silverman, founder of Daydream. Teams coming from Hyperproof usually tell us the same thing: Hyperproof is solid for controls and evidence, but their TPDD process still lives in a patchwork of forms, spreadsheets, email threads, and “please review this” Slack messages. Daydream is designed to tighten the operational loop around TPDD so intake, review, and decisions don’t get stuck behind audit-style workflows.

Where Daydream fits for TPDD

• Best when you want a TPDD-first workflow that makes it easy to run consistent diligence across many third parties, while still producing defensible outputs for compliance and audit stakeholders.
• Particularly relevant if your frustration with Hyperproof is “we can track controls, but we can’t run due diligence at speed without manual coordination.”

Pros

• Practical focus on the mechanics TPDD teams run every day: structured intake, review flows, and decision documentation that stands up to internal challenge.
• Helps reduce “tool drift,” where Hyperproof holds evidence but TPDD work happens elsewhere.

Cons (real limitations)

• Daydream is not a full GRC suite; if you need internal controls testing, audit management, and enterprise policy management in the same platform, a GRC-first tool may fit better.
• As a newer entrant, Daydream may have fewer prebuilt enterprise integrations than long-established platforms; integration needs should be validated early.

OneTrust

OneTrust is broadly known for privacy, data governance, and risk programs, with offerings that many organizations use across multiple compliance domains. For TPDD, OneTrust is often evaluated by teams that want third-party risk to connect to privacy obligations and data processing oversight.

Where it fits for TPDD

• Strong fit if third-party assessments must explicitly track privacy, data mapping, DPIAs, and vendor/processor obligations as part of the same compliance motion.
• Helpful when your “third party” population includes many data processors and your program is privacy-led.

Pros

• Good alignment to privacy and data governance needs that frequently drive third-party reviews.
• Works well in organizations that want to standardize intake and assessment across privacy and security stakeholders.

Cons

• Can be broad; teams sometimes struggle to keep implementations simple if the TPDD scope is narrow.
• If your primary goal is operational throughput for security due diligence, you’ll want to confirm the assessment workflow matches how your team actually works.

ServiceNow GRC

ServiceNow GRC is a strong option when your organization already runs ServiceNow for ITSM, workflows, or enterprise service delivery. For TPDD, the big advantage is workflow depth and integration across enterprise processes.

Where it fits for TPDD

• Best for enterprises that want TPDD tightly connected to service management, procurement workflows, ticketing, and approvals.
• Works well when you need rigorous routing, SLAs, and complex ownership models across many teams.

Pros

• Excellent workflow and automation potential if you already live in ServiceNow.
• Integrates naturally into enterprise operating models (requests, tasks, approvals, and auditability).

Cons

• Implementation effort can be significant; you’re often building your TPDD operating model into a powerful platform.
• May be over-scoped for smaller TPDD teams that mainly need a lightweight due diligence workflow.

---

Feature comparison (TPDD lens)

Dimension	Hyperproof	AuditBoard	Daydream	OneTrust	ServiceNow GRC
Primary orientation	Compliance operations: controls, evidence, audits 1	Audit/assurance and risk programs 1	TPDD-first operations and decision workflows	Privacy/data governance plus risk programs	Enterprise workflow platform with GRC modules
Third-party lifecycle workflow	Can support via configuration; often control/evidence-centric	Structured governance; may require tailoring for TPDD day-to-day	Built to run intake → review → decisions with less manual coordination	Often used where privacy obligations drive the lifecycle	Highly configurable lifecycle tied to enterprise workflows
Questionnaire + follow-up operations	Works best when diligence maps cleanly to evidence collection	Possible, but can be heavier than purpose-built TPDD	Designed around operational execution and handoffs	Strong where privacy questionnaires and processor oversight dominate	Can automate at scale, but build effort is real
Cross-team routing and approvals	Solid tasking; may feel audit-shaped	Strong governance, reporting, and accountability	Clear review flows; validate complex enterprise routing needs	Effective across privacy/security stakeholders	Deep routing, SLAs, and approvals across the org
Best-fit environment	Compliance teams optimizing audits and evidence	Larger audit/risk organizations	TPDD teams prioritizing speed and consistency over GRC breadth	Privacy-led or data-governance-heavy orgs	Enterprises already standardized on ServiceNow

---

Decision criteria: which tool to choose

Use these “if this, then that” rules:

• Choose Hyperproof if your TPDD program is essentially a compliance evidence workflow and you want third-party artifacts to map directly into audits and control narratives.
• Choose AuditBoard if you have a mature audit/risk function and TPDD needs to report into assurance programs with strong governance and executive reporting.
• Choose Daydream if you’re leaving Hyperproof because TPDD work still happens outside the tool, and you want a system that matches how TPDD is executed: intake, triage, reviews, exceptions, and documented decisions.
• Choose OneTrust if third-party diligence is heavily privacy-driven (processors, DPAs, DPIAs, data governance) and you want that connected to the same program infrastructure.
• Choose ServiceNow GRC if you need TPDD embedded into enterprise workflows (ITSM/procurement/tasking/approvals) and you can support a more involved implementation.

Regulatory context note: regardless of tool, your process should be able to evidence risk-based due diligence and ongoing monitoring concepts reflected in common guidance such as OCC third-party relationships guidance (2021) and EBA outsourcing guidelines (2019), if those apply to your footprint.

Migration considerations and switching costs (what actually takes time)

Switching from Hyperproof (or any GRC tool) usually isn’t blocked by exporting data. The work is operational:

1. Normalize your third-party inventory: Decide what is a “third party,” who owns records, and how you handle parent/child relationships.
2. Rebuild tiering and triggers: Define what triggers due diligence (new purchase, renewal, data access change, criticality change).
3. Rationalize questionnaires: Most teams have too many. Cut, tier, and align to review types (security, privacy, financial, business continuity).
4. Remediation workflow: Decide how you track exceptions, compensating controls, and approvals, plus how you evidence acceptance.
5. Parallel run: For 30–60 days, run the new workflow alongside the old one for a subset of third parties, then cut over.

One common mistake is migrating every historical artifact. Move what you need for audits, active findings, and upcoming renewals. Archive the rest.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Hyperproof a bad fit for third-party due diligence?

No. Hyperproof can work well if you treat third-party work as part of a controls-and-evidence program. Teams usually look for a Hyperproof alternative for third party due diligence when they need higher-volume assessment operations and a clearer third-party lifecycle.

What’s the biggest difference between GRC-first and TPDD-first tools?

GRC-first tools typically start from controls, evidence, and audit workflows. TPDD-first tools typically start from intake, triage, questionnaires, follow-ups, exceptions, and approval decisions.

Should TPDD live inside the same platform as internal compliance?

Sometimes. If your auditors expect one system of record for controls and evidence, consolidation helps. If TPDD is bottlenecked by operational throughput, splitting TPDD into a dedicated workflow can reduce cycle time and manual coordination.

How do I evaluate alternatives without a 6-month RFP?

Run a time-boxed pilot with 10–20 real third parties across tiers, including one “difficult” third party. Score tools on intake friction, reviewer time, exception handling, and how clearly decisions are documented for audit follow-up.

What should I migrate first if I’m moving off Hyperproof?

Start with your third-party inventory, tiering logic, and active/open due diligence items. Then migrate templates (questionnaires, review checklists) and only the historical evidence you must keep accessible for audit or renewals.

Footnotes

1. vendor positioning