SecurityScorecard vs Daydream: Third Party Risk Management Comparison

SecurityScorecard vs Daydream comes down to monitoring-led risk visibility versus workflow-led due diligence execution. SecurityScorecard helps you quantify and continuously track third-party cyber posture from the outside-in, while Daydream is built to run defensible third-party due diligence workflows (intake, evidence, reviews, decisions) aligned to your risk appetite and control requirements.

Key takeaways:

• SecurityScorecard fits programs that need continuous, scalable third-party cyber monitoring and benchmarking across large portfolios.
• Daydream fits teams that need faster, auditable due diligence workstreams, stronger evidence handling, and consistent control testing tied to risk decisions.
• Many mature programs use both patterns: monitor broadly, then trigger deeper due diligence where risk, criticality, or regulatory posture requires it.

CISOs and Compliance Officers usually aren’t choosing between two “TPRM tools” in the abstract. You’re choosing an operating model for your third-party risk program: continuous external signal monitoring, or structured due diligence workflows that produce an auditable trail of control effectiveness decisions.

SecurityScorecard is widely known for security ratings and continuous monitoring of third parties’ externally observable security posture. It’s commonly used to triage risk across thousands of third parties, drive remediation conversations, and support ongoing oversight.

Daydream is purpose-built for third-party due diligence workflows. The focus is how your team gathers and evaluates evidence, maps it to your control expectations, documents exceptions against risk appetite, and produces artifacts that stand up to examiner scrutiny.

This guide is written in the language of defensible programs: risk segmentation, control testing, evidence quality, regulatory posture, and operational capacity. I’m also going to be direct about real tradeoffs, including where Daydream is newer and where SecurityScorecard’s ratings approach can be misused if you treat it as a substitute for due diligence.

Side-by-side comparison (SecurityScorecard vs Daydream)

Dimension	SecurityScorecard	Daydream
Primary value	Outside-in security ratings and continuous monitoring across many third parties 1	Workflow system for third-party due diligence: intake, assessments, evidence collection, review/approval, and audit trail 2
Best fit	Programs with large inventories that need scalable ongoing monitoring signals and prioritization	Programs that need repeatable, documented due diligence tied to risk appetite and control requirements
Risk segmentation	Often used to segment based on rating/issue signals and portfolio benchmarking	Typically segments based on inherent risk, criticality, data access, and required control sets inside the workflow
Control effectiveness view	Indirect proxy via external signals; good for “what might be wrong” and trend tracking	Direct evidence-based evaluation of control design/implementation for the scope you define
Evidence management	Common pattern: links to findings/signals and supporting context; evidence quality depends on what the third party provides outside the platform	Centralizes questionnaires/evidence requests and review notes, building an audit-ready record of what you asked for, what you received, and how you decided
Remediation tracking	Commonly supports issue visibility and engagement around observed issues; depth varies by your process	Typically tracks remediation items as part of the due diligence outcome and exception process
Regulatory posture support	Strong for “ongoing monitoring” expectations if governed properly; must be paired with due diligence for high-risk third parties	Strong for “due diligence before onboarding/renewal” expectations and consistent documentation; must be paired with monitoring if you need continuous external signals
Implementation	Fast to start for monitoring use cases (connect vendors / domains, define thresholds, triage processes)	Fast for workflow rollouts if your control library and tiering are defined; more upfront design if you’re standardizing questionnaires/control sets
Integration footprint	Broad ecosystem expectations given market adoption; specific integrations should be validated in current docs	Newer platform; fewer out-of-box integrations than established vendors, so confirm what’s native versus API/workarounds
Enterprise procurement	Well-known in enterprise RFPs and boards familiar with “ratings”	Less brand recognition in some enterprise RFP cycles; buyer enablement may take more internal education

SecurityScorecard: what it does well, and where it can fail in practice

Capabilities (verifiable at a high level)

SecurityScorecard is publicly positioned around security ratings, continuous monitoring, and third-party/vendor risk visibility based on externally observable signals. In practice, teams use it for:

• Portfolio-level oversight: “Show me the riskiest 50 third parties this month.”
• Ongoing monitoring: New issues trigger follow-up with the third party.
• Board and exec communication: A single score can help summarize a large portfolio, if you’re disciplined about what the score means.

Pros (what teams consistently like)

1. Fast signal at scale for large third-party populations where questionnaires for everyone are not feasible.
2. Continuous view that supports renewal decisions and “what changed since last review.”
3. Prioritization tool: helps focus scarce due diligence effort on third parties with meaningful signals.

Cons (real tradeoffs you have to govern)

1. Ratings are not evidence of control effectiveness. External signals do not prove whether a control is designed appropriately for your use case, or operating effectively in-scope.
2. False positives and attribution disputes consume time. Many teams end up in long threads with third parties about whether an issue belongs to them, a subsidiary, or a hosting provider.
3. Shallow coverage for non-internet-facing risks. Privacy program maturity, SDLC practices, access governance, subcontractor controls, and resilience testing often require direct due diligence, not outside-in inference.

Daydream: what it does well, and where it can fall short today

Capabilities (must be true to public positioning)

Daydream is positioned as purpose-built for third-party due diligence workflows rather than a generalized GRC suite or a security ratings platform. The core pattern is:

• Intake and scoping based on inherent risk and criticality
• Standardized assessment paths (questionnaires/evidence requests)
• Evidence review, decisioning, exceptions, and audit trail

This aligns to what examiners actually test: not whether you had a score, but whether your program showed reasonable, risk-based diligence and documented decisions.

Pros (why teams adopt it)

1. Defensible workflow and audit trail. You can show what you requested, what you received, how you evaluated it, and who approved residual risk.
2. Control-based thinking. The tool is naturally oriented around control expectations and evidence review, which supports control effectiveness conversations.
3. Operational speed for lean teams. A focused TPDD workflow tool can remove spreadsheet overhead and reduce back-and-forth across email and shared drives.

Cons (product-level issues to plan for)

1. Newer platform with a smaller customer base than established vendors. Some buyers will need extra comfort during procurement and security review.
2. Narrower scope than full GRC suites. If you need enterprise risk, policy management, internal audit, and compliance workflows in one platform, you may still need adjacent tooling.
3. Fewer out-of-box integrations than long-established platforms. Validate your ticketing, intake, SSO, CMDB/procurement, and document repository needs early, and plan for API-based integration if required.
4. Less brand recognition in enterprise RFPs. Your internal stakeholders may need clearer articulation of why “due diligence workflow” is distinct from “ratings” or “GRC.”

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

Choose SecurityScorecard when…

• You manage a high-volume portfolio (hundreds to thousands of third parties) and need continuous monitoring signals to support oversight.
• Your maturity model already includes due diligence elsewhere, and you want ongoing monitoring as a second line of defense.
• Your regulatory posture emphasizes continuous oversight for critical third parties, and you can document how ratings signals trigger follow-up activities.

Choose Daydream when…

• You need consistent, repeatable due diligence for onboarding and renewals, with clear mapping to risk appetite and control requirements.
• You’re examiner-facing and need an auditable record aligned to third-party lifecycle management expectations (see regulatory mapping below).
• Your team is small and needs workflow discipline to prevent missed renewals, incomplete evidence, or undocumented exceptions.

Common “mature program” pattern: use both (intentionally)

Use SecurityScorecard for broad monitoring, then route high-risk changes into Daydream for deeper evidence-based review. The program fails when teams treat a rating as a pass/fail onboarding gate without due diligence, or when they do deep diligence on every low-risk third party and burn out.

Cost and resource considerations (pricing model realities)

SecurityScorecard

Security ratings vendors commonly sell via subscription tied to portfolio size and feature tiers. Specific pricing varies and is typically quote-based; confirm current packaging directly with SecurityScorecard. Resource model: you need someone to own triage, vendor communications, and exception logic, otherwise you accumulate unresolved alerts.

Daydream

Daydream is typically sold as a subscription SaaS (quote-based in most cases; confirm current packaging directly with Daydream). Resource model: you’ll spend time up front defining tiering, control sets, and evidence standards. After that, teams usually reallocate time from chasing artifacts to higher-quality review and decisioning.

Guidance from programs we’ve seen: budget for the tool plus the operating model. A tool cannot fix unclear risk appetite, inconsistent control expectations, or weak third-party ownership in the business.

Implementation complexity and realistic timelines

• SecurityScorecard: Many teams can stand up a basic monitoring program quickly once they have a vendor inventory and domain mapping. The longer pole is governance: what triggers outreach, what triggers escalation, and what qualifies as acceptable remediation evidence.
• Daydream: Implementation speed depends on how defined your program is today. If you already have tiering and questionnaires, rollout can be quick. If you’re standardizing control expectations, expect more design time up front to avoid rework.

A common mistake is launching either tool before you define: (1) risk tiers, (2) required controls per tier, (3) exception authority, (4) renewal cadence, (5) documentation standards.

Compliance and regulatory mapping (what each supports, and what you still must do)

Below is how these approaches map to common guidance. This is programmatic mapping, not a claim that any tool “complies” on its own.

• OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (2013): Emphasizes third-party lifecycle management, due diligence, contract provisions, and ongoing monitoring.

  • SecurityScorecard supports ongoing monitoring signals.
  • Daydream supports due diligence documentation, review workflow, and exam-ready artifacts.

• FFIEC guidance on outsourced cloud/third-party relationships (FFIEC IT Examination Handbook, various booklets; confirm the specific booklet applicable to your scope):

  • Monitoring can support oversight.
  • Evidence-based reviews remain necessary for critical/high-risk relationships.

• NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022) (Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management):

  • SecurityScorecard aligns to continuous risk monitoring concepts for suppliers.
  • Daydream aligns to structured assessment and response processes, especially when you need to document risk treatment decisions.

• EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (2019): Focus on governance, risk assessment, and maintaining an outsourcing register, with attention to critical/important functions.

  • Daydream fits strongly for risk assessments, evidence handling, and renewals.
  • SecurityScorecard fits for ongoing monitoring but should not replace criticality-based assessment requirements.

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (supplier relationship controls appear in Annex A, e.g., supplier security requirements):

  • Daydream supports operationalizing supplier reviews and retaining records.
  • SecurityScorecard can serve as a monitoring input, not the full supplier assurance process.

Real-world scenarios (where each fits best)

1. Bank with examiner scrutiny, limited staff, and high-risk fintechs: Daydream-first for due diligence and exception governance; add SecurityScorecard for ongoing monitoring of critical third parties and concentration hotspots.
2. Global enterprise with 5,000+ third parties and decentralized procurement: SecurityScorecard to create a consistent baseline signal and triage queue; Daydream for scoped deep dives on critical/regulated flows.
3. Healthcare org managing PHI vendors: Daydream for evidence-backed HIPAA-aligned diligence (mapped to your internal control set). Use SecurityScorecard as a supplemental signal for internet-facing exposure changes.

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

Your situation	SecurityScorecard tends to fit	Daydream tends to fit
You need continuous oversight across a very large portfolio	Yes, monitoring-first operating model	Only if paired with another monitoring signal source
Your biggest pain is inconsistent evidence collection and approvals	Secondary; doesn’t solve workflow by itself	Yes; workflow and audit trail are the core value
You need to defend control effectiveness decisions to auditors/examiners	Indirect support; you still need evidence	Direct support; evidence and decisions are first-class
Your stakeholders expect a simple portfolio metric	Yes; ratings are designed for this	Possible via reporting, but not the primary paradigm
You want a single system to run broad GRC beyond TPRM	Not the focus	Not a full GRC suite; confirm scope

Frequently Asked Questions

Is SecurityScorecard a TPRM platform or a security ratings platform?

In practice, teams buy it for security ratings and continuous monitoring of third parties. You can run parts of a TPRM process around it, but it does not replace evidence-based due diligence for high-risk third parties.

Can Daydream replace a security ratings tool?

Not if your goal is outside-in, continuous monitoring signals across thousands of third parties. Daydream is centered on running due diligence workflows and documenting control expectations, evidence review, and approvals.

What do auditors usually want to see: ratings or evidence?

Auditors and examiners typically look for risk-based due diligence, documented decisions, and ongoing monitoring aligned to criticality. A rating can be a monitoring input, but it rarely stands alone as evidence of control effectiveness.

How should we map these tools to risk appetite?

Define risk tiers and minimum control requirements per tier, then decide which signals trigger deeper review. Use ratings to adjust priority, and use due diligence workflows to document exceptions and residual risk acceptance.

What’s the biggest implementation risk with each?

For SecurityScorecard, it’s alert fatigue and unclear escalation logic. For Daydream, it’s trying to standardize control sets and questionnaires without agreement on scope, tiering, and exception authority.

Footnotes

1. SecurityScorecard’s public positioning on security ratings/monitoring

2. Daydream’s positioning as TPDD workflow software