Vendor Risk Management Spreadsheet Alternative

Spreadsheets (Excel or Google Sheets) are genuinely good at a few things in vendor risk management: they’re fast to start, easy to tailor, familiar to reviewers, and inexpensive to expand across the business. For early-stage programs, a spreadsheet can function as a lightweight third-party inventory, a basic risk tiering register, and a tracker for security questionnaires or SOC report requests.

The problems show up once your workflow becomes real TPDD: repeated evidence collection, inconsistent risk decisions across business units, version control issues, missing audit trails, and the “where is that SOC 2?” scavenger hunt. The spreadsheet itself isn’t the enemy; it just isn’t designed to be a system of record for third-party due diligence.

Compliance teams under OCC third-party relationships guidance (OCC Bulletin 2013-29, 2013), EBA outsourcing guidelines (EBA/GL/2019/02, 2019), and NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (2020) expectations typically need clearer governance: intake, risk assessment, due diligence, contracting touchpoints, ongoing monitoring, and evidence retention. This page lays out credible alternatives to a vendor risk management spreadsheet, with practical tradeoffs and migration advice.

What a vendor risk management spreadsheet does well

You may be evaluating a spreadsheet “tool” because it’s what your program already runs on. That’s normal. Spreadsheets typically succeed at:

• Rapid customization: Add columns for inherent risk, data types, access levels, criticality, renewal dates, and business owner notes without configuration work.
• Low-friction reporting: Pivot tables and filters can produce quick snapshots for leadership.
• Cross-functional collaboration (early on): A shared sheet can coordinate procurement, IT/security, privacy, and legal for a small number of third parties.

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

In practice, teams switching from spreadsheets usually cite the same operational pain:

• Evidence management is fragile: SOC 2s, ISO certificates, pen test letters, and security exhibits become email attachments and shared-drive links with inconsistent naming and retention.
• Audit trail gaps: You can’t reliably show who approved what, when, based on which evidence, and what changed after.
• Inconsistent assessments: Questionnaires and control requirements drift by reviewer, business unit, or urgency.
• No workflow guardrails: Intake, routing, remediation, and re-assessment depend on manual follow-ups.
• Scaling breaks collaboration: Multiple editors, multiple copies, and “final_v7” versions become the norm.

Many of these gaps map directly to what regulators and auditors look for in third-party oversight: a repeatable process, documented decisions, and retained artifacts (for example, OCC Bulletin 2013-29, 2013; EBA/GL/2019/02, 2019).

---

Alternatives to a Vendor Risk Management Spreadsheet (alphabetical)

Archer (RSA Archer)

Archer is often chosen when you need a configurable GRC backbone with third-party risk as one module in a broader governance program. On Archer’s site and materials, it’s positioned for risk, compliance, and audit workflows, with heavy configuration options and enterprise-scale reporting.

Why teams choose it: You can model complex approval chains, align third-party risk to enterprise risk, and standardize artifacts and reporting across multiple risk domains (not only vendors). If your organization already runs core GRC in Archer, keeping third-party due diligence inside the same ecosystem can reduce fragmentation.

Tradeoffs vs. spreadsheets: Implementation and administration are real work. Archer typically requires dedicated ownership, data modeling, and ongoing tuning. For a TPDD team that mainly needs intake, evidence capture, and consistent reviews, Archer can feel like “building an app” rather than turning on a workflow.

Best for: Large enterprises with formal GRC operating models, internal admin capacity, and a need to tie third-party risk into ERM and audit.

---

Daydream

I’m Isaac Silverman, founder of Daydream. Teams moving off spreadsheets usually have a specific pain pattern: the “tracker” (rows and columns) is fine, but the actual due diligence work happens in email threads, shared drives, and meeting notes. Daydream is designed around that gap: turning third-party due diligence into an evidence-centered workflow where requests, artifacts, decisions, and follow-ups stay connected to the third party record.

Why this matters for spreadsheet users: A spreadsheet alternative should not just recreate a grid in a web UI. In our experience, spreadsheet-based programs struggle most with (1) controlling intake and routing, (2) collecting and retaining evidence consistently (SOC reports, ISO certs, DPAs, SIG/CAIQ responses), and (3) producing an audit-ready narrative for why a third party was approved with conditions. Daydream focuses on making those steps repeatable without forcing you into a heavy “GRC rebuild.”

Daydream cons (real limitations):

• Daydream is not a full-suite GRC for internal controls, enterprise risk, and audit management in the same platform; teams seeking one system for everything may prefer broader platforms.
• Daydream is a newer entrant, which often means a smaller ecosystem of prebuilt enterprise integrations and fewer long-tenured reference customers than legacy vendors.

Best for: Lean compliance/security teams that want to replace spreadsheet sprawl with a system that’s built for TPDD records, artifacts, and decisions.

---

OneTrust (Third-Party Risk Management)

OneTrust offers a broad trust portfolio, and its Third-Party Risk Management product is commonly evaluated by teams that want third-party assessments alongside privacy, security, and GRC-adjacent workflows. OneTrust’s website describes structured assessments, workflows, and reporting across its platform.

Why teams choose it: If your third-party diligence program is closely tied to privacy obligations (DPAs, data mapping, subprocessors) or you want adjacent capabilities under one vendor umbrella, OneTrust can reduce tool sprawl. For organizations already standardized on OneTrust for privacy, adding third-party risk there can simplify user management and governance.

Tradeoffs vs. spreadsheets: The breadth can be a downside if your immediate need is a tight TPDD workflow with minimal overhead. Some teams find they need careful configuration to keep assessments, question banks, and workflows aligned with how procurement and security actually operate.

Best for: Teams that want third-party risk connected to privacy/trust programs, especially if OneTrust is already in place.

---

Prevalent

Prevalent is well-known for third-party risk management with a strong emphasis on assessments and vendor intelligence services (as described on its website). It’s often evaluated by teams that need to scale questionnaires, gather responses, and maintain a repeatable review process without building everything from scratch.

Why teams choose it: For organizations drowning in manual questionnaires, Prevalent’s model is appealing: centralize assessments, track remediation, and use the platform to manage recurring reviews. Many teams also look at Prevalent when they want help “operationalizing” due diligence, not just storing results.

Tradeoffs vs. spreadsheets: You still need to define your program requirements clearly (risk tiers, required evidence by tier, approval rules). If your internal workflow is unclear, any assessment-centric platform can become a better-looking tracker rather than a consistent decision system.

Best for: Mid-market to enterprise teams focused on scaling assessments and standardizing remediation tracking.

---

ServiceNow Vendor Risk Management (VRM)

ServiceNow VRM is commonly chosen by organizations already running ServiceNow for ITSM, GRC, or workflow automation. ServiceNow’s materials position VRM as part of a broader platform where you can connect third-party risk to operational workflows.

Why teams choose it: If your enterprise already routes intake, approvals, and tasks in ServiceNow, VRM can connect third-party diligence with ticketing, asset context, and operational ownership. That’s hard to replicate with spreadsheets. ServiceNow can be compelling when you want third-party risk actions to create work where teams already live.

Tradeoffs vs. spreadsheets: Platform power comes with platform complexity. You’ll likely need skilled admins and a clear data model. For smaller compliance teams, the overhead can be disproportionate if the primary goal is simply to standardize TPDD evidence and approvals.

Best for: Enterprises standardized on ServiceNow that want third-party risk tied into service management and workflow automation.

---

Feature comparison (Vendor Risk Management Spreadsheet Alternative)

Dimension	Archer (RSA)	Daydream	OneTrust TPRM	Prevalent	ServiceNow VRM
Best fit	Enterprise GRC programs that need deep configurability	Teams replacing spreadsheet sprawl with structured TPDD records and evidence	Orgs aligning vendor risk with broader trust/privacy workflows	Programs scaling assessments and remediation follow-up	Enterprises integrating vendor risk into ServiceNow workflows
Workflow & approvals	Highly configurable workflows; often requires admin buildout	Purpose-built TPDD flow focused on intake, evidence, decisions, follow-ups	Workflow-capable; often benefits from careful design to avoid sprawl	Structured assessment workflows and remediation tracking	Strong workflow automation if you already use ServiceNow patterns
Evidence & artifacts	Can store artifacts; governance depends on configuration	Evidence-centered approach to keep artifacts tied to decisions	Supports documentation across trust workflows	Built around assessments and tracking artifacts associated with reviews	Can manage artifacts; often tied to broader platform records/tickets
Questionnaires/assessments	Configurable but can be heavy to design	Supports structured diligence without relying on ad hoc sheets	Supports assessments as part of the suite	Core strength: assessment programs at scale	Supports assessments; often integrated with broader GRC processes
Reporting & auditability	Strong enterprise reporting when implemented well	Audit-ready narrative from linked intake, artifacts, and approvals	Reporting across trust domains; depends on configuration	Reporting around assessments and remediation	Reporting aligned to ServiceNow data model and workflows
Implementation reality	Typically a project with ongoing admin	Lighter-weight than full GRC rebuilds; still requires process definition	Best if you already use OneTrust and can extend	Faster if your assessment approach is clear	Most efficient when ServiceNow is already a core platform

---

Decision criteria: how to pick

Use these “if this, then that” rules.

1. If you’re <5 people in compliance/security and you need to stop chasing evidence: shortlist Daydream or Prevalent. Prioritize the tool that best matches how you collect SOC/ISO/security exhibits and document approvals.

2. If you’re a regulated financial institution building to examiner expectations: consider Archer or ServiceNow VRM, especially if your enterprise already uses one as a system of record. Map your lifecycle to OCC 2013-29 (2013) and document how each step is evidenced.

3. If privacy and data processing risk drives most vendor reviews: shortlist OneTrust (especially if DPAs, subprocessors, and privacy workflows are central).

4. If you already run IT workflows in ServiceNow: ServiceNow VRM often reduces friction because it routes tasks where teams already work.

Migration considerations and switching costs (from spreadsheets)

• Data cleanup is the project: normalize third-party names, owners, renewals, and tiering. Expect duplicates and stale records.
• Define “required by tier” upfront: what evidence is mandatory for High vs. Medium risk third parties (SOC 2, ISO 27001, pen test, BCP/DR, financials). Tools won’t fix missing policy decisions.
• Plan for artifact migration: decide what to import, what to archive, and what to re-collect at next renewal.
• Change management: reviewers need new habits (upload evidence, log decisions, close loops). A tool rollout without training becomes a prettier spreadsheet.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What’s the biggest risk of staying on a vendor risk management spreadsheet?

The risk is less about the sheet and more about everything around it: missing evidence, inconsistent approvals, and weak audit trails. Those gaps surface during audits, incidents, and renewals.

Can a spreadsheet be “good enough” for a small program?

Yes, if your third-party count is low and your diligence expectations are lightweight. The moment you have recurring reviews, multiple reviewers, and evidence retention requirements, purpose-built tooling usually saves time and reduces control gaps.

Which alternative is best for heavily regulated environments?

Archer and ServiceNow VRM are common fits in highly controlled enterprise environments, especially if you need alignment to broader GRC and auditable workflows. The deciding factor is often your existing platform footprint and admin capacity.

How do I avoid recreating my spreadsheet inside a new tool?

Start by standardizing your lifecycle (intake → tiering → due diligence → decision → remediation → monitoring). Then configure the tool to enforce that flow, rather than importing every column you ever tracked.

What should I migrate first from spreadsheets?

Migrate your third-party inventory, risk tier, business owner, and active contracts first. Bring historical evidence over selectively, and set a policy for what gets re-collected at renewal.