Panorays vs SecurityScorecard: Third Party Risk Management Comparison

Panorays vs SecurityScorecard comes down to workflow-led third-party due diligence versus ratings-led outside-in monitoring. Choose Panorays if your defensible program depends on structured assessments, evidence collection, and remediation tracking. Choose SecurityScorecard if you need fast, scalable visibility across a large third-party population with continuous external signals and board-friendly reporting.

Key takeaways:

• Panorays skews toward assessment workflows and engagement with third parties to validate controls and drive remediation.
• SecurityScorecard skews toward outside-in security ratings and continuous monitoring across broad third-party ecosystems.
• Your best fit depends on risk appetite, regulatory posture, and whether your exam narrative prioritizes evidence-based due diligence or continuous surveillance (or both).

CISOs and Compliance Officers rarely ask for “a TPRM tool.” They ask for a defensible program: one that matches risk appetite, produces audit-ready artifacts, and shows control effectiveness across the third-party lifecycle. That is where the Panorays vs SecurityScorecard decision usually lands.

In our experience evaluating these tools with security and compliance teams, the real fork in the road is operational. Some teams need a system of record for due diligence: tiering, questionnaires, evidence, exception handling, and remediation tracking that you can map to regulatory expectations. Others need scale first: a way to monitor thousands of third parties continuously, detect deteriorating external posture, and route the right escalations to procurement, security, or the business.

Both Panorays and SecurityScorecard market themselves in third-party risk, but they approach it differently. The right selection depends on third-party population size, the maturity of your intake and review processes, and how your regulators interpret “ongoing monitoring” under guidance like OCC Bulletin 2013-29, FFIEC third-party guidance (various booklets), EBA outsourcing guidelines (EBA/GL/2019/02), and NIST supply chain guidance such as NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022).

Side-by-side comparison: Panorays vs SecurityScorecard

Evaluation area	Panorays	SecurityScorecard
Primary model	Questionnaire- and evidence-led third-party due diligence with collaboration and remediation workflows 1.	Outside-in security ratings and continuous monitoring of third parties using external signals, with scorecards and factor views 2.
Best fit	Teams that need consistent control validation, artifacts, and structured follow-up with third parties.	Teams that need fast coverage across large ecosystems, especially where many third parties will not complete questionnaires on time.
Data sources	Emphasis on third-party-provided responses/evidence plus platform-driven risk views (as described in Panorays’ platform overview).	Emphasis on externally observable telemetry and issue identification that rolls up into ratings and factor categories (as described in SecurityScorecard’s methodology pages and product overview).
Due diligence workflow	Built around sending assessments, collecting responses, managing findings, and tracking remediation with third parties 3.	Supports workflows around monitoring, issue discovery, and tracking but is centered on ratings as the organizing layer 4.
Continuous monitoring	Typically combines periodic reassessments with ongoing risk signals depending on configuration and available integrations 5.	Continuous monitoring is the core promise; changes in external posture drive alerts and trend reporting 6.
Reporting for execs / board	Risk views tied to assessment posture and remediation status; strong for “what we asked, what we got, what we accepted” narratives.	Score-based summaries and benchmarking-style reporting; strong for quick posture snapshots and third-party comparisons.
Program defensibility in audits	Strong fit where auditors expect traceable assessment artifacts, evidence, approvals, and exception handling.	Strong fit where you need to show ongoing monitoring and risk signals, plus documented response playbooks for rating changes.
Admin overhead	More operational work if you run many assessments and chase evidence; the payoff is cleaner documentation.	Less friction for initial coverage; requires governance to avoid “ratings noise” and to define thresholds that match risk appetite.
Integration emphasis	Commonly aligns with TPRM workflows; integration needs depend on how you connect intake, procurement, and ticketing.	Often pairs with SOC processes and risk reporting; integration needs depend on how you triage issues into ITSM and vendor management.

Panorays: detailed capability analysis

What Panorays does well

1. Structured third-party assessment workflow
   Panorays is frequently evaluated by teams that need a consistent assessment process across onboarding and periodic reviews. The platform positioning emphasizes questionnaire distribution, response collection, and remediation collaboration with third parties.

2. Evidence-forward due diligence
   A defensible program usually needs more than a score. You need what you reviewed, who approved it, what exceptions you accepted, and what remediation you required. Panorays’ approach aligns well with evidence collection and follow-up, based on its described assessment and remediation workflows.

3. Remediation coordination with third parties
   Many programs fail in the “post-assessment gap.” Panorays is often used to push findings back to the third party and track closure, which supports narratives around control effectiveness and risk treatment (accept/mitigate/transfer/avoid).

Where Panorays can be a weaker fit (real cons)

• Friction at large scale: If you have thousands of third parties and limited staffing, questionnaire-led due diligence can become a throughput problem. You will still need tight tiering and a clear risk appetite to prevent assessment sprawl.
• Dependent on third-party engagement: The quality of your output is tied to response rates and evidence quality. In practice, strategic third parties engage; long-tail third parties often do not.
• Not a substitute for external attack-surface monitoring: Even strong assessment artifacts do not automatically reflect real-world exposure changes. You may still need a separate outside-in monitoring motion, depending on your regulatory posture and threat model.

SecurityScorecard: detailed capability analysis

What SecurityScorecard does well

1. Outside-in visibility at speed
   SecurityScorecard is known for security ratings that summarize external posture signals into a format procurement, legal, and business leaders can consume. For teams that need quick coverage across a large third-party ecosystem, this model reduces dependency on third-party cooperation.

2. Continuous monitoring as an operating model
   Ratings platforms tend to be used to detect changes over time and trigger follow-up when a third party’s observable posture degrades. This supports “ongoing monitoring” expectations, provided you document how you review alerts and what actions you take.

3. Benchmarking and prioritization
   In practice, teams use ratings to prioritize where to spend assessment time. A ratings-led list helps you decide which third parties warrant deeper diligence, especially when staff is thin.

Where SecurityScorecard can be a weaker fit (real cons)

• Ratings disputes and explanation burden: Expect workflows around “we fixed this” or “this is not us.” You need time to manage disputes and interpret what the signal means for your risk appetite.
• Limited evidence for certain control areas: External signals do not confirm many controls auditors care about (examples: secure SDLC policy enforcement, access governance design, incident response tabletop frequency). You may still need questionnaires and artifacts for higher inherent-risk third parties.
• Noise and threshold governance: Continuous monitoring produces constant signals. Without defined thresholds, owners, and exception paths, teams either ignore alerts or overreact, both of which weaken defensibility.

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

Choose Panorays more often when:

• You operate in a high-scrutiny regulatory posture where examiners expect traceable due diligence artifacts and approvals, common in banking and financial services programs aligned to OCC Bulletin 2013-29 and FFIEC third-party oversight expectations.
• Your third-party tiering is mature and you can focus evidence collection on high inherent-risk relationships.
• Your defensible program hinges on control effectiveness narratives: “Here is the control requirement, here is the evidence, here is the gap, here is the remediation, here is the accepted residual risk.”

Choose SecurityScorecard more often when:

• Your third-party population is large and you need immediate, continuous visibility across the long tail.
• You already have a due diligence process and want ongoing monitoring signals to inform reassessments, escalations, and contractual enforcement.
• You must show ongoing monitoring in practice, aligning your internal procedures to guidance like NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022) concepts for supply chain risk management and ISO/IEC 27001:2022’s supplier relationship controls (note: you still need your own documented processes and evidence trails).

Cost and resource considerations (pricing model realities)

Neither Panorays nor SecurityScorecard publishes a universal price card that applies to all buyers, and pricing often varies by third-party count, modules, and service levels ⁷. Plan for:

• License cost that scales with third-party volume (common for both categories).
• Internal resourcing:
  • Panorays: more analyst time for assessments, evidence review, follow-ups, and exception documentation.
  • SecurityScorecard: more time for alert triage, ratings disputes, and defining governance thresholds tied to risk appetite.
• Optional services: Some programs add managed services for questionnaire chasing or monitoring triage; confirm what is included versus add-on during procurement.

If you need hard numbers, require vendors to quote using the same assumptions: third-party count, tier distribution, reassessment frequency, number of internal users, and whether business owners can participate.

Implementation complexity and realistic timelines

Implementation time depends on program maturity and data quality more than the tool.

Typical timeline drivers (both tools)

1. Third-party inventory hygiene: If procurement, AP, and IT asset records disagree, your tool rollout stalls.
2. Tiering model and scoping rules: You need a written policy that maps inherent risk to due diligence depth.
3. Workflow ownership: Who sends assessments, approves exceptions, and signs residual risk?

Realistic rollout patterns

• SecurityScorecard-first deployments often move faster to “initial coverage” because you can start with a list of third parties and begin monitoring. Expect additional time to operationalize: thresholds, escalation paths, and board reporting.
• Panorays-first deployments often take longer to show value because the workflow must be configured and third parties must engage. The payoff is a cleaner audit trail once the process is running.

Compliance and regulatory mapping (how to narrate defensibility)

You are mapping tool outputs to guidance, not claiming the tool “makes you compliant.”

• OCC Bulletin 2013-29: Examiners look for a lifecycle program (planning, due diligence, contract issues, ongoing monitoring). Panorays aligns naturally to due diligence artifacts and remediation tracking. SecurityScorecard aligns naturally to ongoing monitoring signals. The defensible program uses documented procedures plus tool records.
• FFIEC third-party oversight guidance (various FFIEC booklets): Emphasis on governance, risk assessments, oversight, and monitoring. Ratings can support monitoring, but higher-risk relationships typically still require evidence-based reviews.
• NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022): Supply chain risk management expects continuous risk awareness and defined response actions. SecurityScorecard can support continuous awareness; Panorays can support structured supplier assessments and tracking of risk treatment decisions.
• EBA Guidelines on outsourcing (EBA/GL/2019/02): Focus on material outsourcing, oversight, access/audit rights, and ongoing controls monitoring. Panorays supports documentation of due diligence and follow-ups for material providers. SecurityScorecard supports continuous posture monitoring as an input, but you still need contractual governance and documented reviews.
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022: Supplier relationship controls require defined expectations and monitoring. Use Panorays records (requests, evidence, approvals) and SecurityScorecard trend/alerts as monitoring inputs, then document management review and corrective actions.

Real-world scenarios (where each fits best)

1. Regional bank with a formal TPRM policy and examiner cadence
   Panorays fits when the exam narrative depends on evidence, approvals, and remediation tracking for material third parties. Add ratings later for continuous monitoring coverage if the team can operationalize alerts.

2. SaaS company with 1,500+ third parties and a lean GRC team
   SecurityScorecard fits for quick posture visibility and prioritization. Use it to decide which third parties warrant deeper questionnaires and contractual action.

3. Healthcare delivery network managing many BAAs and service providers
   A mixed approach is common: assessments and evidence for high-risk third parties, ratings for long-tail monitoring and change detection. Your decision depends on whether the current pain is “we can’t get evidence” (lean SecurityScorecard) or “we can’t manage workflows and remediation” (lean Panorays).

Decision matrix (use case-based, no single “winner”)

Use case	Panorays tends to fit	SecurityScorecard tends to fit
You need an audit-ready due diligence file per critical third party	Evidence requests, responses, approvals, remediation tracking as a primary workflow	Ratings can supplement but rarely replace evidence for critical relationships
You need immediate visibility across a large third-party universe	Requires tiering and operational capacity to avoid backlog	Rapid baseline monitoring across many third parties
You want to drive third-party remediation with accountability	Finding-to-remediation workflows match this motion	Works if third parties accept ratings-based findings; disputes can slow closure
You must demonstrate “ongoing monitoring” with documented triggers	Works if you operationalize periodic reviews plus any monitoring signals you have	Continuous monitoring is central; document thresholds and response playbooks
Your risk appetite demands explainable control narratives	Strong alignment to control-by-control validation	Strong alignment to “posture signal” narratives; less direct control evidence

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Panorays or SecurityScorecard better for a defensible program?

It depends on what your auditors and regulators expect to see. Panorays tends to produce clearer due diligence artifacts, while SecurityScorecard tends to produce clearer ongoing monitoring signals and trends. Many defensible programs use both motions with defined tiering.

Can SecurityScorecard replace questionnaires?

For low inherent-risk third parties, ratings may be enough to support screening and monitoring. For high-risk or regulated relationships, external signals usually do not cover the evidence examiners ask for, so questionnaires and artifacts remain necessary.

Can Panorays replace security ratings?

Panorays can support continuous monitoring depending on how you run reassessments and ingest signals, but a questionnaire-led program can miss rapid posture changes. If your threat model requires outside-in monitoring, consider adding a ratings layer.

How do I map either tool to OCC Bulletin 2013-29?

Map your lifecycle stages to tool outputs: due diligence artifacts, contract requirements tracking, and ongoing monitoring activities. Your narrative matters as much as the tool: document who reviews what, at what cadence, and what triggers escalation.

What is the most common implementation failure mode?

Inventory and ownership. If you cannot name the third-party owner, tier the relationship, and define what “acceptable” means for your risk appetite, both tools turn into dashboards without decision quality.

Footnotes

1. Panorays product materials

2. SecurityScorecard product materials

3. Panorays workflow descriptions

4. SecurityScorecard workflows and product descriptions

5. Panorays positioning around continuous monitoring

6. SecurityScorecard positioning

7. common vendor sales motions and publicly available “request a demo/quote” packaging