Drata vs Daydream: Third Party Due Diligence Comparison

CISOs and Compliance Officers end up comparing Drata vs Daydream for one practical reason: third party risk always becomes audit scope, but not every audit tool runs third party due diligence well. Most teams feel the friction when the same third party questionnaire gets copied into spreadsheets, emailed around, then reassembled into something you can defend to an examiner.

A defensible program has a few non-negotiables: documented risk appetite, consistent risk tiering, evidence that your controls are actually effective (not just “collected”), and an audit trail that shows who approved what, when, and why. Regulators and standards bodies keep repeating this theme across guidance like OCC Bulletin 2013-29, FFIEC Architecture, Infrastructure, and Operations (AIO) Booklet (2017), NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022), and EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (2019).

This page treats “vendor” as one type of third party. The real comparison is whether you need a platform optimized for compliance evidence automation (Drata) or one optimized for third party due diligence operations (Daydream), and what you give up either way.

Drata vs Daydream: side-by-side comparison (third party due diligence focus)

Evaluation area	Drata	Daydream
Primary job to be done	Continuous compliance evidence collection and audit readiness (SOC 2, ISO 27001, etc.), with controls, tests, and auditor workflows reflected in the product positioning 1.	Third party due diligence workflow: intake, scoping, assessments, evidence review, and decisioning designed around how TPDD teams operate 2.
Best fit for “risk appetite” operationalization	Good for mapping internal controls to frameworks and showing evidence cadence; risk appetite for third parties typically lives in process design outside the tool unless your team extends it.	Good for turning risk appetite into consistent third party gating, tiering, and review steps, with audit trails tied to the due diligence lifecycle.
Control effectiveness signal	Strong for internal control monitoring signals via integrations and evidence collection; third-party control effectiveness typically remains document-and-assertion heavy unless you add process.	Strong for documenting and operationalizing third party control checks and reviewer decisions; less oriented toward always-on technical telemetry across your internal stack.
Third party assessment workflow	Can support third party-related tasks, but the center of gravity is compliance programs rather than dedicated TPDD operations 1.	Designed to be the operating workflow for TPDD; fewer distractions from audit-centric features.
Evidence handling	Evidence collection and audit package workflows are core; strong alignment to audit artifacts and control testing motions 1.	Evidence review and decisioning are oriented around “is this third party acceptable for this use case,” with a tighter loop to intake and approvals.
Reporting	Strong for compliance reporting aligned to frameworks and audits; may require customization for TPDD KPIs like cycle time by tier, exception reasons, and compensating controls.	Strong for TPDD reporting like queues, bottlenecks, approval audit trails; less focused on auditor-ready exports across many compliance frameworks.
Integrations	Broad integration story is part of compliance automation value; confirm coverage for your stack (IdP, cloud, ticketing) in Drata’s integration directory 1.	Expect fewer out-of-box integrations than established compliance automation vendors; validate what’s native vs API vs manual 2.
Enterprise procurement perception	Well-known in compliance automation; often easier to pass early-stage “recognized vendor” screens for SOC 2/ISO automation.	Newer platform with lower brand recognition in enterprise RFPs; may require more security/procurement education.
Admin overhead	Mature compliance platforms can be powerful but require ongoing ownership to keep controls, tests, and evidence sources clean.	TPDD-first configuration typically tracks your process; still requires clear intake rules and tiering logic to avoid inconsistent reviewer behavior.

Product analysis: what each tool is strong at

Drata (where it fits in TPDD reality)

What Drata is known for: compliance automation and audit readiness, centered on controls, evidence, and frameworks ¹.

Where that helps TPDD teams

• Regulatory posture for audits: If your examiner or auditor asks, “Show me evidence your controls operated,” Drata’s model matches that question. You can align third party oversight activities to a control narrative and produce artifacts consistently.
• Control library and testing motion: Teams we’ve worked with like that compliance automation tools create a steady cadence. Even if third party assessments live elsewhere, you can document oversight controls and link evidence.
• Cross-framework normalization: If you run SOC 2 plus ISO 27001, the underlying control mapping approach can reduce duplicated work, assuming your program is structured well.

Drata limitations for third party due diligence

1. TPDD is rarely the primary object model. Your “unit of work” in TPDD is a third party relationship, scoped to a service and data access pattern. Compliance tools often treat third party artifacts as evidence attached to controls rather than a first-class workflow.
2. Risk tiering and conditional workflows may require process glue. If your risk appetite says, “Tier 1 requires security review + privacy + BCP validation + contract clauses,” you may need external workflow discipline to keep it consistent.
3. Evidence can become a checkbox motion. A common failure mode: collecting SOC 2 reports without recording why a gap was acceptable, what compensating control exists, and who signed the exception. You can do this in Drata, but it may not be the default workflow.

Drata genuine pros

• Mature audit-readiness positioning and framework coverage ¹.
• Strong fit for teams that need repeatable evidence collection and auditor-facing outputs.
• Aligns well to internal control programs where third party oversight is one control family among many.

Drata genuine cons (minimum 3)

• Not purpose-built for end-to-end third party due diligence lifecycle management; you may need parallel tooling or process to manage intake-to-approval.
• Workflow may reflect compliance control testing more than relationship-specific due diligence decisions.
• TPDD metrics (cycle time by tier, exception taxonomy, queued approvals) may take more customization than dedicated TPDD tools.

Daydream (purpose-built for third party due diligence)

What Daydream is built for: operating third party due diligence workflows end to end, rather than adapting a broader GRC or compliance automation model ².

Where that helps

• Defensible program mechanics: You can express risk appetite as routing rules, tiering, required reviewers, and required evidence by relationship type. That creates consistency, which examiners look for under OCC Bulletin 2013-29 and EBA outsourcing expectations (OCC Bulletin 2013-29; EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements, 2019).
• Control effectiveness at the relationship level: TPDD control effectiveness often means “we reviewed the right things, at the right depth, for the right risk tier, and we documented the decision.” Daydream’s orientation supports that.
• Faster operational throughput: If your backlog is approvals and follow-ups, a TPDD-first workflow tool usually reduces the spreadsheet/email churn.

Daydream limitations you should plan for

1. Newer platform risk: Smaller customer base and shorter public track record than established vendors. This matters for enterprise procurement and “proven in peers” expectations.
2. Narrower scope than full GRC suites: If you want ERM, policy management, internal audit management, and compliance automation in one platform, Daydream is not positioned as that type of suite ².
3. Fewer out-of-box integrations than established compliance automation vendors: Expect to validate integration depth for your specific systems (ticketing, GRC, IdP) rather than assume parity ².
4. Brand recognition in RFPs: If your procurement process rewards household names, Daydream may face extra scrutiny even when it fits the workflow better.

Daydream genuine pros

• TPDD-first workflow design with clearer linkage between intake, scoping, evidence review, and approval.
• Easier to build consistent due diligence pathways aligned to risk tiering and data access patterns.
• Strong fit for teams building a defensible third party program from a messy starting point.

Daydream genuine cons (minimum 3)

• Newer platform with less enterprise brand recognition.
• Narrower scope than broad GRC suites and compliance automation platforms.
• Likely fewer prebuilt integrations than mature compliance automation vendors; you may need more configuration or manual steps depending on your stack.

Cost and resource considerations (what you can say without guessing)

Drata pricing model: Drata sells SaaS subscriptions; pricing is typically quote-based and varies by scope (common for compliance automation vendors). If you need precise numbers, request a quote and confirm what’s included (frameworks, entities, integrations, auditor seats) ³.

Daydream pricing model: Daydream sells SaaS subscriptions; pricing is quote-based. Confirm whether pricing scales by number of third parties, internal users/reviewers, or modules, since TPDD economics often tie to third party volume and review workload ².

Resourcing reality

• If you pick Drata for TPDD-heavy needs, plan for a TPDD process owner to maintain relationship records, tiering logic, and exceptions outside core compliance evidence flows.
• If you pick Daydream, plan for a compliance owner to align TPDD outputs to audit narratives and framework controls, especially if your auditors expect a neat mapping.

Implementation complexity and realistic timelines

Timelines depend more on your current state than on the tool.

Drata typical implementation motion (audit-first)

1. Define in-scope frameworks and entities.
2. Connect evidence sources (IdP, cloud, ticketing, endpoint, etc.) where supported ¹.
3. Assign control owners, align tests, remediate gaps.
4. Add third party oversight controls and attach TPDD artifacts as evidence.

Where teams slip: importing controls without deciding what “effective” means operationally. You get a beautiful dashboard and a weak program.

Daydream typical implementation motion (TPDD-first)

1. Define relationship tiers (data sensitivity, access method, criticality) aligned to risk appetite.
2. Configure required evidence and reviewers by tier and third party type.
3. Migrate active third party inventory (or start with net-new intake and backfill).
4. Establish exception handling: compensating controls, expiration dates, and re-review triggers.

Where teams slip: tiering that is too complex. If reviewers cannot tier consistently, you lose defensibility.

Compliance and regulatory mapping (how each supports defensibility)

Use mapping as a governance artifact, not a marketing checkbox.

• OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (third-party relationships): expects governance, risk assessment, due diligence, contract issues, ongoing monitoring, and documentation. Daydream aligns naturally to due diligence + ongoing monitoring workflow; Drata aligns naturally to documenting oversight controls and producing evidence packages.
• FFIEC AIO Booklet (2017): emphasizes lifecycle management and oversight of outsourced technology and controls. TPDD workflow tooling supports lifecycle traceability; compliance automation supports evidence traceability.
• NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022): focuses on cyber supply chain risk management. Both can support documentation, but you still need defined supplier controls, tiers, and monitoring triggers outside the tool.
• EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (2019): requires strong outsourcing governance, registers, risk assessment, and ongoing oversight. TPDD-centric tooling helps maintain the outsourcing register and review trails; audit-centric tooling helps produce consistent artifacts for internal and external assurance.
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022: expects supplier relationship controls and documented information. Drata commonly supports ISO evidence management ¹; Daydream supports supplier due diligence documentation ².

When to use each (team size, maturity, regulatory context)

Choose Drata when

• You are audit-driven (SOC 2/ISO deadlines, multiple frameworks, frequent evidence requests).
• Your third party due diligence is stable and lightweight, or you already run TPDD in another system and need audit packaging.
• You have a compliance team that can own controls, tests, and evidence hygiene.

Choose Daydream when

• Your biggest risk is uncontrolled third party intake: shadow SaaS, inconsistent reviews, and approvals that happen in Slack.
• You need to prove process control effectiveness for third party decisions: who reviewed, what evidence, what exceptions, and re-review schedules.
• You are maturing from spreadsheets to a defensible TPDD operating model, especially under banking/financial services scrutiny.

Real-world fit scenarios

1. Fintech expanding vendor count fast: Daydream fits if your risk appetite requires tier-based gates before procurement signs. Drata fits if your immediate driver is SOC 2 readiness and you need evidence automation.
2. Mid-market SaaS with annual SOC 2: Drata fits if third party due diligence is mostly collecting SOC 2 reports and DPAs. Daydream fits if customer security reviews are pushing you to formalize third party oversight and exceptions.
3. Bank or credit union with examiner attention: Daydream fits for lifecycle traceability and due diligence consistency aligned to OCC/FFIEC expectations. Drata fits to package internal control evidence and maintain audit-ready documentation across multiple control families.

Decision matrix (use-case based, no “pick X” recommendation)

Your primary driver	Decision logic	Better fit
Pass SOC 2 / ISO audit with clean evidence	You need automated evidence collection, control testing cadence, and auditor-facing exports	Drata
Reduce TPDD cycle time and stop inconsistent reviews	You need intake-to-approval workflow, tier-based requirements, and exception trails	Daydream
Mature third party governance to match risk appetite	You need enforceable tiers, required reviewers, and ongoing re-review triggers	Daydream
Run many compliance programs in one place	You need broad compliance program management features across frameworks	Drata
Procurement requires widely recognized vendor	You want a vendor with higher brand recognition in compliance automation	Drata

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “drata vs daydream” usually mean in a CISO evaluation?

It usually means you’re deciding whether your pain is audit evidence management (Drata’s center of gravity) or third party due diligence operations (Daydream’s center of gravity). The wrong choice shows up as manual workarounds and inconsistent approvals.

Can Drata manage third party risk end to end?

Drata can support third party oversight as part of a broader compliance control program, but its primary positioning is compliance automation and audit readiness ¹. Many teams still keep dedicated TPDD workflow elsewhere if the program is high-volume.

Can Daydream replace a full GRC suite?

If your goal is enterprise-wide GRC (ERM, internal audit, policy governance), Daydream is not positioned as a full-suite replacement ². It is positioned around third party due diligence workflows specifically.

Which is better for proving “control effectiveness” to regulators?

Drata is strong for demonstrating internal controls with consistent evidence collection aligned to audits. Daydream is strong for demonstrating that third party due diligence decisions followed your defined process, with review trails and exceptions tied to specific relationships.

What should I validate in a demo for each?

For Drata, validate framework coverage, integrations relevant to your control set, and how third party artifacts attach to controls ¹. For Daydream, validate tiering logic, reviewer routing, exception handling, and reporting that matches how you defend decisions ².

Footnotes

1. Drata website, accessed 2026

2. Daydream website, accessed 2026

3. Drata website, accessed 2026, pricing pages/requests