NAVEX Alternative for Third Party Due Diligence

NAVEX (NAVEX One) earns its reputation in compliance because it supports the “front office” of an ethics program: policies and training, incident reporting and case management, and program documentation. For many Compliance teams, that matters more than any single due diligence workflow because it touches every employee and drives defensibility during audits and investigations.

Where teams get frustrated is when they try to run third party due diligence (TPDD) at scale inside a platform optimized for broader compliance operations. In practice, TPDD requires high-throughput vendor intake, clean risk tiering, dynamic questionnaires, evidence collection that doesn’t devolve into email threads, and renewal/monitoring that doesn’t rely on heroics. If your work is anchored in anti-corruption programs (for example, aligning to DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, updated 2023) or third-party oversight expectations (for example, OCC 2013-29), the mechanics of the workflow matter.

Below is a pragmatic guide to NAVEX alternatives for third party due diligence. I’ll start by acknowledging what NAVEX does well, then where it commonly falls short for TPDD, then walk through credible alternatives in alphabetical order, including Daydream.

What NAVEX does well (and why many teams start there)

NAVEX’s core strength is that it’s built for compliance program operations, not just third-party reviews. On NAVEX’s product materials, you’ll see emphasis on:

• Whistleblowing / incident reporting and case management (ethics hotlines, intake, investigations workflow).
• Policy management and training (policy distribution, attestations, training administration).
• Centralization across compliance functions under a single program umbrella.

That matters because third-party issues often originate in tips, investigations, or policy violations. If your priority is connecting due diligence findings to the broader compliance operating model, NAVEX can be a sensible hub.

Where NAVEX can fall short for third party due diligence workflows

Teams searching “NAVEX alternative for third party due diligence” tend to describe a few recurring pain points:

1. TPDD workflow depth vs. breadth
   NAVEX is designed to cover many compliance workflows. TPDD teams sometimes need more purpose-built tooling for vendor onboarding, risk tiering, questionnaires, evidence review, and renewal calendars.

2. Evidence handling gets messy at scale
   Third-party files quickly become collections of PDFs, emails, screenshots, and “final-final” versions. If the tool doesn’t make evidence collection and reviewer notes fast and structured, analysts end up doing work outside the system.

3. Business-user experience can slow intake
   A common failure mode: business stakeholders see third-party onboarding as friction. If request forms, scoping questions, and status visibility aren’t clean, Compliance becomes a ticket desk.

4. You may not want to buy a whole compliance suite to fix TPDD
   Some teams only want to modernize third-party due diligence without replacing training/hotline/case management.

Alternatives to NAVEX for third party due diligence (alphabetical)

Archer (RSA Archer)

Archer is a long-standing option for organizations that want configurable GRC workflows and are willing to invest in administration. Many enterprises use Archer to model third-party risk processes alongside enterprise risk and controls, with extensive fields, workflow stages, and reporting.

Where it fits for TPDD: If your TPDD program is tightly integrated with enterprise risk management, audit, and controls testing, Archer’s configurability can support complex approval chains and custom risk models.

Pros

• Highly configurable workflows and data model for third-party risk artifacts.
• Works well in environments that need deep governance, reporting, and audit alignment.

Cons

• Heavier implementation and admin overhead; small TPDD teams can struggle without a platform owner.
• Changes often require configuration work rather than quick iteration by Compliance.

Daydream

I’m Isaac Silverman, founder of Daydream. We built Daydream for teams who feel NAVEX is great for ethics program infrastructure but leaves their TPDD analysts spending too much time chasing information, reformatting questionnaires, and assembling due diligence files for review.

Daydream is focused on the mechanics of TPDD: intake, scoping, requesting information, collecting evidence, and producing a reviewable due diligence package that stands up to internal scrutiny. Teams switching from NAVEX typically want two things: (1) less friction for the business requester, and (2) a more structured workspace for analysts and reviewers so decisions and supporting materials don’t live in email.

Pros

• Purpose-built TPDD workflows that reduce “spreadsheet + inbox” operations.
• Cleaner separation of requester inputs vs. compliance analysis, which helps with auditability.

Cons (real limitations)

• Narrower scope than full-suite GRC platforms; if you need hotline, training, policy, and TPDD in one system, Daydream may not be the hub.
• Newer entrant with a smaller installed base and typically fewer prebuilt enterprise integrations than long-established GRC suites.
• Less suited if your goal is to consolidate privacy, internal controls, and enterprise risk into the same platform as TPDD.

OneTrust (Third-Party Risk / GRC capabilities)

OneTrust is widely known for privacy and data governance, and it also offers third-party risk capabilities as part of a broader risk and compliance platform. For TPDD teams, OneTrust can be attractive if third-party reviews are driven by data processing, privacy, and security requirements, and you want that connected to broader governance activities.

Pros

• Good fit where third-party risk is closely tied to privacy/data mapping and internal governance workflows.
• Can support multi-stakeholder reviews where Security, Privacy, and Compliance each own part of the assessment.

Cons

• Teams focused on anti-corruption or distributor/agent due diligence may find the default posture more privacy/security-centric.
• Broad platforms can require more design decisions up front to avoid over-complex workflows.

ProcessUnity

ProcessUnity is a dedicated third-party risk management platform used by teams that need structured workflows, assessments, and ongoing third-party oversight. It’s often evaluated by organizations that want a focused TPRM system without implementing a full ERM suite.

Pros

• Purpose-built TPRM approach; tends to align well to common TPRM program structures (intake, tiering, assessments, remediation tracking).
• Works well for scaling beyond ad hoc reviews to repeatable processes.

Cons

• Depending on your program, you may still need to integrate external due diligence data sources and internal ticketing/procurement systems.
• If you want a single platform for broader compliance program elements (training/hotline), you’ll still need NAVEX or another suite.

ServiceNow (Vendor Risk Management / GRC)

ServiceNow is often chosen when the organization already runs ServiceNow for IT workflows and wants vendor risk work to live in the same ecosystem. ServiceNow’s risk and VRM capabilities can connect third-party intake to operational workflows, tasks, and approvals.

Pros

• Strong for workflow orchestration across functions; connects well to IT operations and request management.
• Useful if you need third-party risk tasks to route through existing ServiceNow processes and data sources.

Cons

• Can become an IT-led implementation; Compliance may need strong governance to keep TPDD usable for analysts.
• Platform flexibility is a double-edged sword; without careful design, TPDD workflows can feel like ticketing rather than due diligence.

Feature comparison table (TPDD-oriented)

Dimension	Archer	Daydream	NAVEX	OneTrust	ProcessUnity	ServiceNow
Primary strength	Configurable GRC data model and governance	TPDD execution: intake, evidence, reviewer-ready packages	Ethics & compliance suite: hotline, policies, training, cases	Privacy/data governance plus risk workflows	Purpose-built TPRM program workflows	Enterprise workflow orchestration and operational integration
Best for TPDD use case	Complex, custom third-party workflows tied to ERM/audit	Teams leaving NAVEX because TPDD work happens in email/spreadsheets	Organizations prioritizing program-wide compliance operations	Third-party reviews driven by privacy/security requirements	Scaling a standard TPRM lifecycle with repeatability	Organizations standardizing intake/tasks across ServiceNow
Questionnaire & evidence handling	Highly configurable forms; evidence model depends on build	Designed around structured evidence requests and analysis workflows	Supports assessments, but TPDD teams may want more dedicated evidence review UX	Supports multi-stakeholder assessments; configuration varies	Strong assessment workflows; evidence collection depends on program setup	Form/task driven; evidence often handled as attachments/tasks
Implementation style	Project-based configuration	Faster TPDD-focused rollout; narrower scope	Suite rollout across compliance functions	Platform rollout across governance domains	TPRM program rollout	Platform program; often IT-led
Common tradeoff	Admin overhead and longer time-to-change	Not a full GRC suite; fewer “one platform for everything” capabilities	TPDD depth may lag suite breadth	Can feel broad if TPDD is your only problem	May still need adjacent systems for hotline/training	Requires disciplined design to avoid “ticket system” feel

Decision criteria: which NAVEX alternative should you choose?

Use these rules of thumb.

1. Choose Archer if you’re an enterprise with a dedicated GRC admin team, you need highly customized workflows, and audit/ERM integration drives the requirements.

2. Choose Daydream if NAVEX works for hotline/training/cases but your TPDD analysts are drowning in manual evidence collection, version control, and reviewer back-and-forth. Daydream is also a fit if you want to modernize TPDD without ripping out the rest of your compliance suite.

3. Choose OneTrust if third-party risk is tightly coupled to privacy, data processing, and cross-functional governance, and you want those artifacts connected to broader compliance records.

4. Choose ProcessUnity if you want a dedicated TPRM platform that maps cleanly to standard third-party lifecycle steps and you’re scaling beyond a handful of critical vendors.

5. Choose ServiceNow if your organization already runs core business workflows in ServiceNow and you want third-party risk tasks, approvals, and remediation tracking to live where operational teams already work.

Regulatory context note: If you’re building around third-party governance expectations like OCC 2013-29 (banking third-party relationships) or using DOJ guidance for anti-corruption program effectiveness (DOJ, Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, 2023 update), prioritize (a) traceable approvals, (b) documented rationale for risk tiering, and (c) retrieval of the full due diligence file on demand.

Migration considerations and switching costs (what teams underestimate)

Switching from NAVEX (or adding a TPDD point solution alongside it) is rarely “export CSV, import CSV.”

1. Inventory normalization: Decide what a “third party” record means. Procurement vendor IDs, contract records, and TPDD entities often don’t match 1:1.

2. Questionnaire rationalization: Most programs have too many questionnaires. Before migrating, cut redundancies and define which questions are conditional by risk tier and third-party type.

3. Evidence library and retention: Plan where documents live, how you tag them, and how you handle renewals. One common mistake is migrating raw attachments without preserving the decision trail.

4. Approvals and delegations: Rebuild approval logic based on who actually signs off today, not what the policy says. Then align the workflow to the policy.

5. Parallel run: For high-risk third parties, run NAVEX and the new TPDD workflow in parallel for one renewal cycle to avoid gaps.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is NAVEX bad for third party due diligence?

No. NAVEX is strong for running a broad compliance program (policies, training, incident reporting, case management). Teams look for alternatives when TPDD volume grows and the day-to-day evidence and assessment workflow needs more specialization.

Should TPDD live in the same system as hotline and case management?

Sometimes. If your priority is a single compliance system of record, keeping TPDD in NAVEX (or another suite) can reduce fragmentation. If TPDD is operationally heavy, a dedicated tool can reduce cycle time and improve file quality, with integration back to your system of record.

What’s the biggest selection mistake teams make?

Buying based on a demo risk dashboard instead of testing the workflow with real third-party cases. Bring two recent third parties (one low risk, one high risk) and run them through intake, scoping, evidence collection, review, and renewal scheduling.

Can we keep NAVEX and add a TPDD tool?

Yes. Many organizations keep NAVEX for ethics/compliance operations and use a TPDD-focused platform for third-party intake, assessments, and evidence, then sync key outcomes back to NAVEX or a GRC repository.

What should auditors be able to see in the TPDD tool?

A complete file: the request, risk tiering rationale, questionnaire responses, evidence collected, screening results where applicable, reviewer notes, approvals, and the final disposition with conditions (for example, remediation tasks or contractual requirements).