SecurityScorecard Alternative for Third Party Due Diligence

SecurityScorecard earns its reputation for external security ratings, attack surface visibility, and continuous monitoring across large third-party populations. For teams that need a fast, standardized view of cyber posture without waiting on questionnaires, that’s a practical advantage. It’s also widely recognized by security teams, which helps when you need quick alignment with SecOps and procurement.

Where teams get frustrated is when third-party due diligence extends beyond “what does the outside-in signal say?” TPDD typically requires intake and scoping, inherent risk tiering, control validation, document/evidence collection, exception handling, and audit-ready reporting mapped to frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, and NIST CSF. Most regulated teams also need governance hooks (approvals, periodic reviews, and clear ownership) consistent with guidance such as OCC 2013-29 (2013) and EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (2019).

Below is a pragmatic guide to SecurityScorecard alternatives for TPDD, organized by what you’re trying to fix: workflow, evidence, questionnaires, monitoring, or program governance.

What SecurityScorecard does well (and why teams like it)

SecurityScorecard is genuinely strong if your TPDD process depends on:

• Outside-in cyber risk signals that scale across thousands of third parties without waiting for responses.
• Ongoing monitoring for changes in security posture between annual reviews.
• A common language for stakeholders (security ratings are easy to communicate to procurement and business owners).
• Portfolio-level prioritization, where you need to decide which third parties deserve deeper diligence this quarter.

In practice, SecurityScorecard works best as a cyber risk signal layer in a broader third-party program.

Where SecurityScorecard can fall short for TPDD workflows

Teams searching “SecurityScorecard alternative” are often trying to solve problems like:

• Questionnaire and evidence workflow depth: TPDD isn’t only continuous monitoring; it’s also collecting and validating evidence (SOC 2 reports, ISO certificates, policies, pen test letters, SIG/CAIQ responses) and tracking remediation.
• Non-cyber risk coverage: Many programs must cover privacy, financial viability, operational resilience, subcontractors, and data processing terms. Security ratings don’t answer those questions on their own.
• Program system-of-record needs: If you need end-to-end workflows (intake → tiering → assessment → issues → approvals → renewals), you may want a dedicated TPRM platform or a broader GRC tool.
• Audit-ready traceability: Auditors often ask for proof of scoping decisions, follow-ups, approvals, and exception rationale. External ratings help, but they rarely replace workflow artifacts.

A common pattern: teams keep SecurityScorecard for monitoring, then adopt another tool for assessment execution and governance.

---

Alternatives (alphabetical)

Daydream

Daydream is a fit for teams leaving SecurityScorecard because they’re tired of chasing evidence and answers after a rating flags a concern. In our experience, SecurityScorecard users often end up with a repeatable loop: a score drops, you email the third party, you request artifacts, you wait, then you manually document the outcome. Daydream is designed around making TPDD execution faster by structuring how you request, collect, and package diligence outputs so they’re usable for approvals and audits.

Where Daydream is particularly relevant in a SecurityScorecard context: you can use SecurityScorecard’s monitoring to trigger deeper diligence, then use Daydream to run the actual diligence motion with clearer scoping and cleaner evidence trails. That helps if your pain isn’t “we lack signals,” but “we can’t close the loop efficiently.”

Cons (real limitations):

• Daydream is not a full enterprise GRC suite; teams needing ERM, internal controls, and privacy compliance in one platform may prefer a broader system.
• As a newer entrant, Daydream may have fewer out-of-the-box integrations or prebuilt content libraries than long-established TPRM vendors, depending on your stack.

OneTrust

OneTrust is often shortlisted when TPDD sits inside a broader governance program, especially where privacy, data mapping, and compliance workflows need to connect to third-party assessments. For a compliance officer, the appeal is having third-party risk as part of a larger platform that can support policy management, privacy assessments, and related governance processes (capabilities described across OneTrust’s product modules on its website).

Teams moving off SecurityScorecard to OneTrust typically want a system of record for third-party assessments, not only monitoring signals. OneTrust can support structured workflows, assignments, and reporting across multiple risk domains.

Cons:

• If your primary goal is cyber monitoring at scale, OneTrust is not a direct replacement for outside-in ratings; many teams pair it with a ratings provider.
• Platform breadth can add implementation overhead; smaller teams sometimes find they need more configuration work to match their exact TPDD process.

Prevalent

Prevalent is a dedicated third-party risk management provider known for combining TPRM workflow tooling with managed services options (as described on Prevalent’s website). That matters if your team is small, you have a high vendor count, or you need help with assessment operations (follow-ups, reminders, evidence handling).

Prevalent is often considered by SecurityScorecard users who want to move from “we can see the risk” to “we can run the program.” It’s typically positioned around intake, assessments, issue management, and continuous monitoring through a mix of platform and service capabilities.

Cons:

• If you prefer a purely self-serve model, the managed-services orientation may feel mismatched for teams that want to keep all diligence operations in-house.
• Organizations with very specific custom workflows sometimes report needing careful scoping and configuration to avoid process sprawl across business units.

ProcessUnity

ProcessUnity is a long-standing option for organizations that need structured, auditable third-party risk workflows and a configurable program backbone ¹. It’s commonly evaluated by regulated companies that need mature governance: defined assessment stages, approvals, issues, remediation tracking, and renewal cadences.

SecurityScorecard users considering ProcessUnity are usually trying to solve for program rigor: consistent tiering, repeatable assessments, and defensible decisions that map cleanly to examiner expectations (for example, governance expectations reflected in OCC 2013-29 (2013) for third-party relationships).

Cons:

• If your main pain is fast cyber signal monitoring, ProcessUnity is not primarily an outside-in ratings engine; many teams integrate or pair it with one.
• Configuration power can come with a heavier implementation footprint, especially if you’re standardizing processes across decentralized business units.

UpGuard

UpGuard is frequently compared with SecurityScorecard because it also provides third-party security ratings and monitoring based on external signals (as described on UpGuard’s product pages). If your SecurityScorecard frustration is about the specific scoring model, UX, reporting style, or how findings are presented to vendors, UpGuard is a straightforward alternative in the same category.

For TPDD teams, UpGuard tends to work well as a front-end prioritization layer: identify high-risk third parties, then decide where to invest deeper diligence (questionnaires, artifacts, calls).

Cons:

• Like other ratings-first tools, UpGuard may not fully cover end-to-end TPDD workflows (intake → scoping → evidence → approvals) without pairing it with a TPRM platform.
• External scanning and ratings can generate disputes and clarifications with third parties; you still need a process to handle exceptions and context.

---

Feature comparison table (TPDD-relevant)

Dimension	Daydream	OneTrust	Prevalent	ProcessUnity	UpGuard
Primary strength	Streamlining diligence execution and packaging evidence into audit-ready outputs	Connecting third-party risk to broader privacy/compliance workflows	TPRM workflow plus optional services to run assessments	Configurable, governance-heavy TPRM program backbone	External security ratings and continuous monitoring
Best for teams leaving SecurityScorecard because…	You have signals, but evidence collection and follow-through are the bottleneck	You need TPDD tied to privacy and compliance operations	You need help operating the program, not just tooling	You need consistent, auditable workflows across the enterprise	You want a different ratings experience while keeping a ratings-first model
Questionnaire + evidence handling	Built around structured diligence requests and organizing outputs for review	Supported via platform workflows; depends on module setup	Core part of TPRM workflows; often paired with services	Strong workflow controls and assignment tracking	Not the main focus; generally complements questionnaires rather than replacing them
Continuous monitoring approach	Typically paired with monitoring signals (from ratings or other sources) to drive deeper diligence	More governance-centric; monitoring may require integrations	Offered as part of broader TPRM approach (platform + services)	Often relies on integrations/partners for monitoring signals	Central capability: outside-in monitoring and ratings
Implementation profile	Lighter-weight if your goal is improving diligence execution vs rebuilding GRC	Can be broader platform rollout across functions	Can offload work via services; platform setup still matters	More structured rollout; strong fit for mature programs	Fast to start for monitoring; TPDD workflow still needs a system of record

---

Decision criteria: which alternative to choose

Use this as a selection filter.

Choose Daydream if…

• Your team already has ratings/monitoring (SecurityScorecard or similar), but closing diligence is slow.
• You need clean evidence trails for audits and internal approvals without standing up a full GRC platform.
• You want a pragmatic way to turn “score changed” into “review completed with documented rationale.”

Avoid Daydream if you need one platform for TPRM + privacy + internal compliance or require extensive enterprise integrations on day one.

Choose OneTrust if…

• Third-party risk must connect to privacy, compliance, and governance workflows in one ecosystem.
• You have a cross-functional program and can support broader platform administration.

Avoid it if your main objective is replacing cyber ratings; you’ll likely still want a monitoring provider.

Choose Prevalent if…

• You need to scale TPDD with a small team and want the option to outsource parts of assessment operations.
• You want a TPRM platform anchored in execution plus services.

Avoid it if you want an entirely self-run program and minimal services involvement.

Choose ProcessUnity if…

• You’re in a regulated environment and need program rigor, approvals, remediation tracking, and repeatable workflows aligned to examiner expectations (see OCC 2013-29 (2013) as one example of governance focus).
• You’re standardizing processes across business units.

Avoid it if you need a quick monitoring-only swap; it’s built for workflow governance.

Choose UpGuard if…

• You want a ratings-first alternative with continuous monitoring and vendor-facing remediation conversations.
• Your TPDD process uses ratings mainly for triage and prioritization.

Avoid it if you expect the ratings tool to replace your assessment workflow system of record.

---

Migration considerations and switching costs (what to plan for)

1. Define what SecurityScorecard currently does in your program: triage signal, ongoing monitoring, executive reporting, vendor comms, or all of the above.
2. Inventory artifacts: open issues, score change history used in decisions, vendor dispute records, and any internal approval memos tied to ratings.
3. Map workflows before data migration: most failed migrations come from moving fields before aligning process steps (intake, tiering, reassessment cadence).
4. Decide whether you’re replacing or pairing: many teams keep a ratings tool for monitoring and add a TPDD workflow tool for assessments.
5. Run a dual-track pilot: pick 15–30 third parties across tiers, run both processes for one cycle, then compare cycle time, audit trail quality, and stakeholder satisfaction.

Switching costs to expect: retraining stakeholders, reworking vendor communications templates, rebuilding reporting, and re-establishing how you document risk acceptance and exceptions.

---

Practitioner notes: aligning tools to guidance

Most regulators don’t prescribe a specific tool. They look for evidence that you have a repeatable third-party risk process with governance and documentation. If you’re regulated, pressure-test your workflow against:

• OCC 2013-29 (2013) for third-party relationship governance expectations.
• EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (2019) for outsourcing governance, register expectations, and oversight practices.
• NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) and ISO/IEC 27001 as common control and assurance anchors your third parties may attest to.

Pick the tooling that makes your process easiest to execute and defend.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is SecurityScorecard a TPDD platform or a monitoring tool?

SecurityScorecard is best known for security ratings and outside-in monitoring signals. Many teams use it as an input to TPDD, then manage questionnaires, evidence, and approvals in a separate TPRM or GRC workflow tool.

Should I replace SecurityScorecard or keep it and add a TPDD workflow tool?

If your pain is assessment execution (evidence collection, follow-ups, audit trails), pairing often works well. If your pain is the ratings model itself, switching to another ratings provider can make sense.

What’s the biggest migration risk when moving off SecurityScorecard?

Losing the decision context behind past actions. Keep a record of why a score change triggered deeper diligence, what evidence you collected, and who approved exceptions.

Which alternative is best for a small compliance team with too many third parties?

Prevalent is often considered when you need operational support via managed services. If you have monitoring already and need to speed up diligence execution, Daydream can also fit.

Do ratings replace SOC 2 reports and questionnaires?

No. Ratings can inform prioritization, but they usually don’t replace control evidence like SOC 2 Type II reports or targeted questionnaires for your specific data flows and use cases.

Footnotes

1. its TPRM product materials