UpGuard Alternative for Third Party Risk Management

If you’re searching for an UpGuard alternative for third party risk management, start by deciding whether you want to double down on external attack surface + security ratings or shift to a tool built for end-to-end third-party due diligence (TPDD) workflows and evidence collection. The best option depends on how you run assessments, who owns remediation, and what auditors expect.

Key takeaways:

• UpGuard is excellent for security ratings, continuous monitoring, and external risk signals; it can feel thin for full TPDD workflow depth.
• Consider whether you need questionnaires, evidence requests, issue tracking, and approvals in the same system as monitoring.
• Shortlist alternatives based on your assessment volume, regulatory expectations (e.g., OCC 2013, EBA 2019), and integration needs.

UpGuard earns its reputation for giving risk teams fast visibility into third-party cyber posture. Its strengths are clear: security ratings, continuous monitoring, and external-facing findings that help you triage which third parties need attention without waiting for an annual review. For programs where “cyber risk intelligence” is the center of gravity, UpGuard can be a pragmatic daily driver.

Teams searching for an {keyword} typically aren’t saying UpGuard is “bad.” They’re saying something more specific: the work of third-party due diligence is not only about external signals. It’s also about collecting evidence, running structured assessments, documenting decisions, and proving oversight under frameworks like OCC 2013-29 (2013), EBA Outsourcing Arrangements (2019), and NIST SP 800-53 rev. 5 (2020) control expectations.

This guide focuses on where UpGuard fits well, where it can feel limiting for TPDD workflows, and what to consider in alternatives. The goal is a short list you can defend to procurement, audit, and your risk committee.

What UpGuard does well (and why many teams keep it)

UpGuard is widely evaluated for third-party cyber risk because it provides:

• Security ratings and an at-a-glance posture view for third parties based on observable signals (described on UpGuard’s website).
• Continuous monitoring to surface changes over time, which is hard to replicate with periodic questionnaires alone.
• Workflow around findings so security and risk teams can communicate issues and track follow-up (as described in UpGuard product materials).
• Portfolio-level views that help prioritize third parties when you have more relationships than your team can manually assess.

In practice, UpGuard is especially strong when your program needs a front door for cyber risk triage and a way to spot deteriorating posture between scheduled reviews.

Where UpGuard can fall short for third-party due diligence (TPDD)

Teams evaluating an UpGuard alternative for third party risk management usually hit one (or more) of these friction points:

1. Evidence-centric due diligence can feel secondary
   External signals are useful, but regulated TPDD often requires collecting and retaining artifacts (SOC 2 reports, ISO certs, pen test letters, policies, BCP/DR summaries) and documenting how you evaluated them against your requirements.

2. Questionnaire-heavy programs may want deeper assessment ops
   If your process relies on scoping, sending questionnaires, conditional logic, chasing respondents, and mapping responses to a control library, you may want tooling that starts from “assessment execution,” not ratings.

3. Harder to operationalize non-cyber domains
   Many TPRM programs cover privacy, business resilience, financial viability, subcontractors, data processing, and location/sovereignty. If you need a single workflow for cross-domain risk, a cyber-first product may not match your operating model.

4. Audit narratives require defensible decision trails
   Guidance like OCC 2013-29 (2013) and EBA (2019) pushes programs toward consistent governance: approvals, periodic reviews, concentration risk awareness, and documented risk acceptance. If your current workflow lives across email, spreadsheets, and a ratings portal, audit prep becomes a monthly tax.

Alternatives (alphabetical order)

Archer (RSA Archer)

Best for: enterprise programs that need deep GRC workflow customization alongside third-party risk.

Archer is commonly used as a configurable GRC platform with third-party risk modules and broader governance workflows ¹. If your UpGuard usage is mainly “cyber posture signals,” Archer can be the place you formalize the rest: intake, tiering, due diligence plans, control mapping, issues, exceptions, and approvals.

Pros

• Strong fit for organizations that want third-party risk managed alongside enterprise risk, compliance, and audit workflows.
• Highly configurable data model and workflow for complex governance structures.

Cons

• Configuration and administration can be heavy; teams often need dedicated platform owners or services support.
• You may still pair it with an external monitoring/ratings tool, depending on your requirements.

Black Kite

Best for: teams that want security ratings and third-party cyber monitoring with a focus on external posture insights.

Black Kite is positioned around third-party cyber risk monitoring and security ratings ², which makes it a natural comparison to UpGuard. If you like UpGuard’s “continuous signal” model but want a different ratings methodology, reporting approach, or service model, Black Kite is often on the shortlist.

Pros

• Cyber-focused third-party monitoring and posture visibility designed for portfolio oversight.
• Works well as a continuous signal layer to complement annual due diligence.

Cons

• Like most ratings-first tools, it may not replace a TPDD system of record for questionnaires, evidence collection, and cross-functional approvals.
• If you need privacy, resilience, and financial risk in the same workflow, you may need a separate TPRM/GRC tool.

Daydream

Best for: teams leaving UpGuard because they’re over-indexed on ratings and want faster, cleaner evidence-driven TPDD without turning on a full GRC platform.

In our experience, teams switching from UpGuard often say: “The monitoring is useful, but our actual bottleneck is due diligence execution.” That usually means (1) requesting the right evidence, (2) normalizing it into a decision-ready package, and (3) producing an audit-friendly trail for why you approved, rejected, or accepted risk.

Daydream is designed around that TPDD workflow: structuring third-party requests, collecting artifacts, and keeping the review narrative coherent for risk and compliance stakeholders. It’s a practical fit if your UpGuard instance became a cyber signal source, while the real due diligence work still happens in inboxes and spreadsheets.

Pros

• Strong fit for evidence-first due diligence motions where you need consistency, follow-ups, and a clean record of what you reviewed.
• Helps teams operationalize approvals and exception handling without standing up a broad GRC suite.

Cons (real limitations)

• Narrower scope than full GRC platforms; if you need enterprise risk, internal compliance, audit management, and TPRM in one tool, Daydream may not fit.
• Newer entrant with a smaller installed base and typically fewer pre-built enterprise integrations than long-established GRC suites.

OneTrust (Third-Party Risk Management)

Best for: programs that need third-party risk plus privacy and compliance workflows in one ecosystem.

OneTrust offers third-party risk capabilities as part of a broader trust/compliance platform ³. If your “UpGuard alternative” search is driven by a need to bring privacy assessments, data mapping, DPIAs, and vendor oversight closer together, OneTrust can reduce tool sprawl.

Pros

• Good choice when third-party risk intersects heavily with privacy, data processing, and broader compliance workflows.
• Designed for cross-functional use beyond security (legal, privacy, procurement).

Cons

• Implementation scope can expand quickly if you try to standardize multiple programs at once.
• Some teams still keep a dedicated security ratings/monitoring layer for external cyber signals.

SecurityScorecard

Best for: teams that want security ratings and continuous monitoring at scale, with an ecosystem built around score-based workflows.

SecurityScorecard is a well-known security ratings platform with continuous monitoring and third-party cyber risk use cases described on its website. If you’re comfortable with a ratings-driven operating model but want different reporting, collaboration patterns, or vendor engagement workflows, it’s a common UpGuard alternative.

Pros

• Strong for portfolio-level oversight and ongoing cyber posture monitoring.
• Clear communication artifact for non-technical stakeholders who want a score-backed snapshot.

Cons

• Ratings don’t automatically satisfy evidence-based due diligence expectations; you may still need questionnaires, document review, and approvals elsewhere.
• For programs with heavy non-cyber scope (BCP, financials, privacy), you may need complementary tools and process.

Feature comparison table (descriptive, not scored)

Dimension	Archer (RSA)	Black Kite	Daydream	OneTrust TPRM	SecurityScorecard
Primary strength	Configurable GRC workflows across risk/compliance, including TPRM	External cyber posture monitoring and ratings	Evidence-driven TPDD execution and decision records	TPRM connected to privacy/compliance programs	Cyber ratings and continuous monitoring at scale
Best “system of record” for TPDD	Yes, if implemented and governed as such	Typically no; used as signal source	Yes for due diligence artifacts and approvals (TPDD-focused)	Yes, especially if privacy/compliance is in scope	Typically no; used as signal source
Continuous external monitoring	Possible via integrations or add-ons; not the core	Core capability	Not the core; pairs with monitoring tools	Not typically the core	Core capability
Questionnaires & evidence collection	Supported via workflows/configuration	Not the main focus	Core workflow focus	Supported as part of platform workflows	Not the main focus
Cross-domain risk (privacy, resilience, financial)	Yes, with configuration and modules	Mostly cyber	Supports TPDD needs; not a full cross-domain GRC suite	Strong when privacy/compliance overlaps	Mostly cyber
Typical tradeoff	Heavy implementation and admin	Great signals; limited TPDD depth	TPDD-focused; narrower than full GRC	Broad platform scope can expand	Great monitoring; TPDD workflow depth may require other tools

Decision criteria: which alternative fits which team

Use these “if you sound like this, pick that” rules:

• Choose Archer if you’re a large enterprise with formal governance, multiple lines of defense, and you need third-party risk embedded into GRC workflows and reporting to risk committees.
• Choose Black Kite if your priority is external cyber risk monitoring and you want an UpGuard-like approach with a different vendor and feature set.
• Choose Daydream if you’re leaving UpGuard because ratings didn’t fix your due diligence bottleneck: evidence requests, follow-ups, review packages, and audit-ready decision trails.
• Choose OneTrust if privacy/vendor compliance is a major driver (DPAs, privacy reviews, broader trust workflows) and you want third-party risk to live near those programs.
• Choose SecurityScorecard if you want a ratings-centered operating model, need ongoing monitoring, and need a simple artifact for stakeholders that expect a score.

Regulatory context note: guidance such as OCC 2013-29 (2013) and EBA Outsourcing Arrangements (2019) tends to reward consistent governance, documented oversight, and repeatable due diligence. If your exams focus on “show me the evidence and the decision,” bias toward tools that behave like a TPDD system of record.

Migration considerations and switching costs (what actually bites teams)

1. Data model mapping: export your third-party inventory, tiering logic, and review cadence. Decide what becomes authoritative in the new tool.
2. Historic artifacts: keep SOC reports, pen test letters, and approval records accessible. Auditors often ask for prior-cycle evidence.
3. Workflow rewiring: align procurement intake, security review, legal/privacy review, and final approvals. One common mistake is recreating the old process exactly, including its bottlenecks.
4. Parallel run: keep UpGuard (or any ratings tool) in parallel for a cycle if continuous monitoring is embedded in stakeholder expectations.
5. Integrations: confirm SSO, ticketing (for remediation), and vendor intake sources before go-live.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is UpGuard a TPRM tool or a security ratings tool?

UpGuard is widely used for third-party cyber risk visibility through security ratings and continuous monitoring ⁴. Some teams treat it as part of TPRM, but many still need a separate system for questionnaires, evidence, and approvals.

Do regulators accept security ratings instead of due diligence evidence?

Ratings can support prioritization, but regulated programs commonly still need documented due diligence activities and decisioning. Guidance like OCC 2013-29 (2013) and EBA (2019) emphasizes oversight, risk assessment, and ongoing monitoring, which often includes evidence review.

If I replace UpGuard, what do I lose?

You may lose a familiar external signal layer for cyber posture monitoring. If your stakeholders rely on continuous rating changes, plan a replacement monitoring approach or keep a ratings tool alongside a TPDD system of record.

Can I run both a ratings tool and a TPDD workflow tool?

Yes. Many mature programs use ratings/monitoring for continuous signals and a separate tool for assessments, artifacts, and approvals. The key is to define which tool is authoritative for risk decisions and audit evidence.

What’s the fastest way to evaluate an UpGuard alternative?

Pick 10 representative third parties across tiers, run a pilot assessment workflow, and test how the tool captures artifacts, decisions, and follow-ups. Include at least one third party with remediation findings so you can see how exception handling works end to end.

Footnotes

1. RSA Archer’s product information

2. Black Kite’s website

3. OneTrust’s website

4. UpGuard’s website