OneTrust vs SecurityScorecard: Third Party Risk Management Comparison

OneTrust vs SecurityScorecard comes down to workflow depth versus external signal: OneTrust is built for running an end-to-end third-party risk management (TPRM) program with questionnaires, issues, and governance, while SecurityScorecard centers on continuous security ratings and evidence that can accelerate due diligence triage. Many defensible programs pair both: OneTrust for process control, SecurityScorecard for monitoring and prioritization.

Key takeaways:

• OneTrust fits teams that need configurable TPRM workflows, audit-ready governance, and cross-risk use cases beyond security.
• SecurityScorecard fits teams that need continuous outside-in monitoring to focus assessments on the third parties that drive risk.
• Your choice should map to risk appetite and regulatory posture: “prove the process” (OneTrust) vs “see risk drift early” (SecurityScorecard), or both.

CISOs and Compliance Officers rarely choose TPRM tooling based on feature checklists alone. The real question is whether the tool helps you run a defensible program: define risk appetite, apply controls proportionate to inherent risk, measure control effectiveness, document decisions, and show regulators that exceptions are intentional and tracked.

In our experience evaluating these tools with security and compliance teams, OneTrust and SecurityScorecard tend to be shortlisted for different reasons. OneTrust is typically considered when you need to operationalize third-party due diligence and ongoing oversight with structured workflows, a system of record, and reporting across many stakeholders. SecurityScorecard shows up when a team needs continuous monitoring signals, faster triage, and independent security telemetry to complement (not replace) what third parties attest to in questionnaires and audits.

This guide is vendor-neutral. It focuses on how each product aligns to program maturity, staffing, and regulatory expectations such as OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (2013), FFIEC third-party risk guidance (e.g., “Outsourced Cloud Computing,” 2012), NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022), and EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (EBA/GL/2019/02, 2019).

OneTrust vs SecurityScorecard: side-by-side comparison (TPRM focus)

Dimension	OneTrust	SecurityScorecard
Primary value in TPRM	System of record for third-party risk workflows: intake, due diligence, approvals, issues, and reporting 1.	Continuous, outside-in security posture visibility via ratings and monitoring to inform prioritization and ongoing oversight 2.
Best fit	Programs that must demonstrate governance and repeatable process across many third parties, business owners, and risk teams.	Programs that need scalable monitoring, early warning on risk drift, and faster triage for large third-party populations.
Due diligence method	Questionnaire-driven assessments, evidence collection, tracked reviews, and remediation workflows within the platform 3.	Combination of ratings, findings, and shared evidence workflows (e.g., enabling third parties to share documentation) to reduce assessment friction 4.
Control effectiveness view	Stronger for documenting internal decisioning: what you asked, what you reviewed, what you accepted, what you remediated.	Stronger for detecting changes over time and identifying likely control gaps from observable signals; less direct “control tested” evidence unless paired with third-party documentation.
Continuous monitoring	Available through integrations and workflows; typically depends on data sources you connect and your monitoring design.	Core product strength: continuous monitoring and alerting based on SecurityScorecard’s data collection and scoring model.
Workflow configurability	High configurability typical of governance platforms; expect admin design effort and change control.	More prescriptive experience oriented around ratings workflows; faster to start for monitoring, less of a full workflow engine for all TPRM artifacts.
Cross-functional breadth	Often used beyond TPRM (privacy, GRC-adjacent workflows depending on modules licensed).	Purpose-built around cyber risk ratings and related workflows; narrower scope outside security risk monitoring.
Reporting for audits/exams	Strong for “show me your process” narratives: approvals, exceptions, risk acceptances, and evidence trail.	Strong for “show me your oversight signals” narratives: monitoring, trend lines, events, and outreach to third parties.
Typical operating model	Central TPRM office with distributed assessors and business owners.	Security team and TPRM team coordinating; security consumes ratings, TPRM uses outputs to route deeper assessments.

Product deep dive: OneTrust (TPRM workflows and governance)

What OneTrust is good at

• End-to-end third-party lifecycle workflows. Teams use OneTrust to standardize intake, tiering (inherent risk), assessment routing, approvals, and ongoing reviews. This helps align due diligence intensity to risk appetite.
• Auditability and governance. OneTrust’s strength is keeping the decision trail together: questionnaire responses, reviewer comments, issues, remediation plans, and risk acceptances in one place ⁵.
• Program standardization across functions. In practice, organizations with privacy, security, and enterprise risk stakeholders often want one workflow backbone to reduce “spreadsheet and inbox” risk.

Where OneTrust can be a mismatch (real cons)

1. Configuration and administration overhead. The more you tailor workflows, the more you need strong process ownership, platform administration, and change control. Teams without a dedicated TPRM ops lead often stall after initial rollout.
2. Time-to-value depends on process maturity. If your intake/tiering, control library, and exception rules are not defined, a flexible platform can expose gaps rather than solve them. You may spend cycles on program design before execution improves.
3. Scope creep risk. Because OneTrust is commonly used across multiple governance domains, buying additional modules can pull the platform away from the immediate TPRM outcomes unless you manage roadmap and ownership tightly.

Best-fit scenario

• A regulated enterprise (financial services, healthcare, critical infrastructure) that expects to evidence third-party governance and approvals under OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (2013) and EBA/GL/2019/02 (2019). You need consistent documentation for exams, internal audit, and board reporting.

Product deep dive: SecurityScorecard (continuous monitoring and prioritization)

What SecurityScorecard is good at

• Continuous, outside-in monitoring. SecurityScorecard’s core value is observing security posture changes over time and turning them into a consumable signal for oversight, escalation, and third-party engagement ⁶.
• Prioritizing finite assessment capacity. Teams we’ve worked with often cannot deeply assess every third party annually. Ratings help you decide where enhanced due diligence is justified based on observed risk drift.
• Third-party engagement and evidence sharing. SecurityScorecard provides mechanisms for third parties to engage with findings and share documentation in-platform ⁷, which can reduce back-and-forth during due diligence.

Where SecurityScorecard can be a mismatch (real cons)

1. Ratings are not the same as control evidence. Outside-in telemetry rarely proves whether a specific control is designed and operating effectively in your required context (for example, segregation of duties around your data). For many regulatory postures, you still need questionnaires, SOC reports, or contractual attestations.
2. Disputes and interpretation overhead. Ratings findings often require discussion with the third party. Expect time spent validating whether an issue is in-scope, already remediated, or tied to a subsidiary/asset you do not consume.
3. Coverage variability by third party type. Some third parties (small professional services firms, niche processors, non-Internet-facing providers) may have limited externally observable signals. You still need alternative due diligence methods for those relationships.

Best-fit scenario

• A security-led TPRM model with thousands of third parties where you need ongoing oversight aligned to NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022) supply chain risk concepts, and you want early warning indicators rather than point-in-time assessments.

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

Choose OneTrust when…

1. You need a system of record for defensibility. If your exam/audit focus is governance, documented risk decisions, and consistency across lines of business, OneTrust aligns well with expectations in OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (2013) and EBA/GL/2019/02 (2019).
2. Your program already has defined tiering and standards. OneTrust rewards clear definitions: inherent risk criteria, control objectives, review cadences, exception rules, and sign-off authority.
3. You coordinate across many stakeholders. Procurement, legal, security, privacy, and business owners need one place to execute their parts of the workflow.

Choose SecurityScorecard when…

1. Your bottleneck is prioritization. If you cannot assess everyone deeply, continuous ratings can focus time on the relationships most likely to exceed risk appetite.
2. Ongoing monitoring is your gap. FFIEC guidance emphasizes ongoing monitoring and oversight for outsourced relationships (FFIEC, “Outsourced Cloud Computing,” 2012). Continuous monitoring tools can make this operational, provided you document how signals translate into action.
3. You need independent visibility. Ratings provide a counterpoint to self-reported questionnaires and periodic audits, especially for high-volume third-party populations.

Common mature-state pattern: use both

A frequent operating model is OneTrust as the workflow backbone and SecurityScorecard as a monitoring and prioritization data source. That pairing can map cleanly to NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022): governance and response workflows plus continuous supply chain risk monitoring.

Cost and resource considerations (what you can plan for)

OneTrust

• Pricing model (publicly): OneTrust pricing is typically quote-based and varies by modules and scale; public list pricing is not generally posted on their website. Plan for procurement cycles similar to other enterprise governance platforms.
• Resourcing: Expect named owners for TPRM process, platform administration, and reporting. Budget time for workflow design, questionnaire rationalization, and role-based training.

SecurityScorecard

• Pricing model (publicly): SecurityScorecard pricing is generally quote-based; public list pricing is not typically posted. Cost often scales with the number of third parties monitored and feature packages ⁸.
• Resourcing: You need an operating rhythm for monitoring triage: who reviews alerts, what triggers outreach, how disputes are handled, and how exceptions are documented.

Practical guidance: Ask both vendors to price your current third-party population plus 12–24 months of expected growth. Many teams undercount subsidiaries, processors, and key fourth parties they later want to track.

Implementation complexity and realistic timelines

OneTrust implementation realities

• Typical work: data model setup (third-party inventory), tiering logic, questionnaire design, workflow routing, roles/permissions, and reporting.
• Timeline expectation: If your process is defined and you have an implementation partner or strong internal admin, initial rollout can start in weeks; full operating maturity often takes a quarter or two because policy decisions and stakeholder training take time. (No fixed timeline claim; depends on your scope.)

SecurityScorecard implementation realities

• Typical work: third-party list onboarding, entity matching, defining alert thresholds, escalation paths, and integrating outputs into your TPRM workflow.
• Timeline expectation: Monitoring can start quickly once entities are correctly mapped; the slower part is operationalizing responses and aligning business owners to outreach and remediation expectations.

One common mistake: teams turn on monitoring alerts before defining what “actionable” means. You end up with noise, not oversight.

Compliance and regulatory mapping (how each supports a defensible posture)

Use this as mapping guidance, not a claim of formal certification.

• OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (2013) stresses lifecycle management, due diligence, contract provisions, and ongoing monitoring.

  • OneTrust supports documenting due diligence steps, approvals, and issue tracking.
  • SecurityScorecard supports ongoing monitoring signals and follow-up documentation if you connect it to your workflow.

• FFIEC “Outsourced Cloud Computing” (2012) highlights risk management throughout the relationship, including monitoring.

  • SecurityScorecard aligns naturally to monitoring expectations for Internet-facing providers.
  • OneTrust aligns to governance evidence, decisioning, and recurring review schedules.

• NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022) focuses on cyber supply chain risk management practices across the lifecycle.

  • OneTrust helps orchestrate process controls (intake, assessments, remediation tracking).
  • SecurityScorecard helps detect risk drift and informs prioritization.

• EBA/GL/2019/02 (2019) emphasizes outsourcing governance, register/recordkeeping, and ongoing oversight.

  • OneTrust aligns strongly to register discipline and workflow evidence.
  • SecurityScorecard can strengthen oversight where external signals are relevant.

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (and ISO 27002:2022 guidance) expects supplier relationship controls and monitoring.

  • OneTrust helps demonstrate the management system’s repeatable processes.
  • SecurityScorecard supports monitoring inputs; you still need to show how you act on results.

Real-world scenarios (where each fits best)

Scenario A: Bank with exam-driven governance

• Context: Clear risk appetite statements, strict tiering, frequent audits, heavy documentation burden.
• Better fit: OneTrust as primary TPRM system. Add SecurityScorecard if you need monitoring signals to strengthen ongoing oversight narratives.

Scenario B: High-growth SaaS with 2–3 risk practitioners

• Context: Small team, many third parties, limited capacity for long questionnaires.
• Better fit: SecurityScorecard to prioritize and monitor, plus a lightweight workflow layer (which could be OneTrust if you need more governance and have admin capacity).

Scenario C: Enterprise with decentralized procurement

• Context: Business owners buy tools quickly; TPRM chases intake after the fact.
• Better fit: OneTrust to enforce intake gates and standardize approvals; SecurityScorecard to keep visibility on the long tail where reviews are irregular.

Decision matrix (use case-based, not a “pick this” recommendation)

Your primary need	OneTrust tends to fit if…	SecurityScorecard tends to fit if…
Proving governance and decisions to auditors/regulators	You need a single system to document due diligence steps, approvals, exceptions, and remediation.	You already have workflow tooling; you need stronger evidence of ongoing monitoring and escalation.
Reducing assessment backlog	You can rationalize questionnaires and route work efficiently through configured workflows.	You need prioritization signals to decide which third parties deserve deeper review.
Ongoing monitoring at scale	You plan to integrate external signals and enforce periodic reviews through workflows.	Monitoring is the product; your team will run a triage and outreach cadence based on findings.
Cross-functional risk operations	You want one platform shared across privacy/security/risk workflows, with common reporting.	The scope is primarily cyber risk monitoring and security posture management for third parties.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can SecurityScorecard replace questionnaires and SOC 2 reviews?

For most regulated programs, no. Ratings help you prioritize and monitor, but they do not replace documented third-party attestations or audit reports where your risk appetite or regulators expect them.

Is OneTrust a security ratings platform?

OneTrust is primarily a workflow and governance system for TPRM and related risk domains ⁵. Teams usually bring ratings in through integrations or separate tools if they want continuous outside-in monitoring.

Which tool is better for a defensible program under OCC Bulletin 2013-29?

OneTrust typically maps more directly to documenting lifecycle steps, approvals, and issue management. SecurityScorecard can strengthen the “ongoing monitoring” component if you define how rating changes trigger action and document outcomes.

What’s the biggest implementation risk with each tool?

With OneTrust, the risk is over-customizing before you’ve standardized tiering, questionnaires, and exception rules. With SecurityScorecard, the risk is alert fatigue if you don’t define thresholds, ownership, and a dispute-resolution process with third parties.

Can teams run both without duplicating work?

Yes, if you set a clear division of labor: SecurityScorecard generates monitoring signals and prioritization inputs, while OneTrust remains the system of record for assessments, decisions, remediation, and risk acceptance documentation.

Footnotes

1. OneTrust product materials for Third-Party Risk Management

2. SecurityScorecard platform and ratings materials

3. OneTrust TPRM descriptions

4. SecurityScorecard platform and Atlas/shared evidence materials

5. OneTrust TPRM materials

6. SecurityScorecard ratings documentation

7. SecurityScorecard Atlas and platform materials

8. common market packaging; confirm in your commercial discussions