UpGuard vs SecurityScorecard: Security Ratings Comparison

UpGuard and SecurityScorecard are both security ratings platforms, but they fit different third-party risk management styles: UpGuard tends to work well for teams that want fast, evidence-oriented due diligence workflows, while SecurityScorecard often fits programs that want a widely recognized ratings signal and broad ecosystem coverage. Your best choice depends on risk appetite, how you defend control effectiveness, and your regulatory posture.

Key takeaways:

• If your program needs defensible third-party due diligence artifacts, prioritize how each tool supports questionnaires, evidence capture, and issue tracking around a rating.
• If you rely on ratings to tier thousands of third parties, weigh score coverage, alerting, and how explainable findings are to auditors and regulators.
• Your operating model matters: ratings tools can reduce manual work, but they don’t replace ownership of inherent risk, residual risk, and remediation governance ¹.

“UpGuard vs SecurityScorecard” is rarely a pure feature check. CISOs and Compliance Officers usually ask a sharper question: which ratings platform strengthens a defensible third-party risk program without creating false precision in control effectiveness?

In our experience evaluating these tools, the deciding factors are (1) how you translate an external rating into internal risk decisions aligned to risk appetite, (2) how the platform supports remediation workflows with third parties, and (3) whether you can explain and document the logic under examination. That last point comes up directly under OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (2013) and FFIEC third-party guidance, where examiners expect risk-based due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and clear accountability.

This guide compares UpGuard and SecurityScorecard as security ratings products used in third-party due diligence (TPDD) and continuous monitoring. It focuses on practical program mechanics: tiering, triggering events, evidence, escalation, and the audit trail you will need to defend decisions.

UpGuard vs SecurityScorecard: side-by-side comparison (security ratings)

Evaluation area	UpGuard	SecurityScorecard
Primary orientation	Security ratings plus vendor risk workflows; commonly positioned around vendor assessments, questionnaires, and continuous monitoring 2.	Security ratings platform with a large market presence; often positioned around outside-in measurement, benchmarking, and broad third-party visibility 2.
Best fit operating model	Security team or TPVM function that wants to convert findings into trackable remediation requests and due diligence packets with less manual assembly.	Security, procurement, and enterprise risk teams that need a widely recognized external signal to triage a large third-party population and brief executives.
Explainability of ratings	Focus on issue-level findings tied to observed exposures; works best when teams want to show “what changed” and “what we asked the third party to fix.”	Focus on scorecards and factor categories; works well when you need a repeatable, standardized score narrative across many third parties.
Third-party engagement workflow	Commonly used with workflows to request clarifications, manage assessments, and track remediation items alongside monitoring outputs 2.	Commonly used with workflows that support collaboration and communication around scorecards; fits programs that run score-based escalation paths 2.
Scale (portfolio monitoring)	Fits mid-to-large portfolios; teams should validate coverage quality and alert tuning for their specific third-party footprint during a pilot.	Frequently selected for very large portfolios where consistent score coverage and benchmarking are central to the program narrative.
Audit defensibility	Stronger when you need an assessment package: what you monitored, what you asked, what evidence you received, and how exceptions were approved.	Stronger when you need a standardized rating signal to support tiering decisions, board reporting, and ongoing monitoring thresholds.
Typical limitation to plan around	Ratings outputs still require internal mapping to inherent risk and criticality; teams often need to build decision rules to avoid over-relying on a score.	Same structural limitation: score changes are signals, not proof of control effectiveness; teams must avoid treating the score as an assurance report.

How to read this table: a security rating is a monitoring control, not a due diligence control by itself. Under NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022), you still need supplier risk response, governance, and verification mechanisms that match your supply chain threat model.

---

What each platform is (and is not) in a defensible TPDD program

What ratings tools do well

• Portfolio triage: Rapidly segment third parties for deeper review based on externally observable signals.
• Ongoing monitoring: Detect changes that may indicate new exposure, misconfiguration, or incident risk.
• Executive reporting: Provide a consistent artifact for trend reporting across many third parties.

Where teams get burned

One common mistake is treating a rating as a proxy for residual risk. Outside-in telemetry can miss compensating controls, contractual obligations, internal segmentation, and scoping details. Regulators generally expect you to show how you determined the criticality of the relationship, performed risk-based due diligence, and governed remediation (OCC Bulletin 2013-29, 2013; NIST SP 800-161r1, 2022).

---

UpGuard: capabilities, strengths, and trade-offs

Strengths (where UpGuard tends to fit)

1. Due diligence workflow orientation. UpGuard is commonly positioned around vendor risk management workflows alongside security ratings, which helps teams convert monitoring into trackable third-party follow-up ³.
2. Operationalizing findings. Teams that struggle with “we have alerts, now what?” often value platforms that make it easier to package findings into an assessment narrative and remediation requests.
3. Good fit for lean TPVM teams. If you have a small team supporting many third parties, tools that reduce manual back-and-forth and artifact assembly can improve throughput without lowering review quality.

Cons (real-world constraints to plan for)

1. Ratings are still probabilistic. You will still need internal decision logic that maps a rating change to action (re-assessment, escalation, contractual trigger) without overstating control effectiveness.
2. Coverage and attribution edge cases. Any outside-in tool can misattribute assets, miss subsidiaries, or struggle with complex third-party ownership structures. Plan for a dispute/clarification process with critical third parties.
3. Integration dependency for “defensible workflow.” If your system of record is a GRC suite or ticketing tool, you’ll need to validate how UpGuard fits into your evidence chain and handoffs during a pilot (for example, how you retain approvals, exceptions, and communications).

---

SecurityScorecard: capabilities, strengths, and trade-offs

Strengths (where SecurityScorecard tends to fit)

1. Market recognition and stakeholder familiarity. SecurityScorecard is widely known in security ratings conversations, which can matter for executive communication and third-party discussions where “scorecards” are already part of the vocabulary ⁴.
2. Portfolio-level standardization. Programs that need consistent tiering and reporting across thousands of third parties often prefer a highly standardized scorecard construct.
3. Benchmarks and comparisons. If your governance model depends on comparing third parties within a category (cloud providers vs. law firms vs. payment processors), a platform oriented toward benchmarking can support that narrative.

Cons (real-world constraints to plan for)

1. Score explainability gaps in audits. You may need extra internal documentation to connect a factor score to a specific risk scenario and control objective, especially under scrutiny tied to residual risk decisions.
2. Remediation follow-through is still your job. Even with collaboration features, most teams need a disciplined process for issue ownership, timelines, and escalation paths to drive third-party fixes.
3. Signal-to-noise management. Large portfolios can generate a lot of alerts. Teams should plan time to tune thresholds, define triggering events, and prevent alert fatigue from weakening the program.

---

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

Choose an UpGuard-style approach when…

• You run a “due diligence first” program where the rating is one input, but your defensibility depends on questionnaires, evidence, and tracked remediation.
• Your risk appetite is tighter for certain relationship types (outsourcers, critical SaaS, payment processors). You need repeatable workflows that show how you validated controls or accepted exceptions.
• You expect regulator questions about your process. Under OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (2013) and FFIEC third-party guidance, your documentation trail and escalation governance carry as much weight as the monitoring signal.

Choose a SecurityScorecard-style approach when…

• You need broad portfolio coverage and a standardized rating language across many stakeholders.
• Your program is mature enough to operationalize score changes into runbooks (re-assessment triggers, procurement holds, contract clauses, executive escalation).
• Board reporting needs a consistent metric. Ratings can support trend narratives, provided you avoid presenting them as assurance.

---

Cost and resource considerations (what to validate)

Public, definitive list pricing for UpGuard and SecurityScorecard is not consistently available, and pricing typically varies by number of third parties monitored, feature bundles, and service levels. Treat the commercial model as a key evaluation track and require a written quote for your portfolio size.

Budget line items teams often miss:

• Portfolio scoping: which third parties get continuous monitoring vs. point-in-time review.
• Analyst time: triage, disputes, and third-party communications don’t disappear.
• Systems integration: aligning the ratings tool with your GRC system, ticketing, or procurement workflow.

If a vendor proposes pricing “per third party,” ask how they count parent/child entities and how they handle acquisitions or entity changes.

---

Implementation complexity and realistic timelines

For both tools, a realistic rollout usually has three phases:

1. Pilot (2–6 weeks): Validate score coverage for your top 50–200 third parties, confirm attribution accuracy, and test alert thresholds.
2. Workflow mapping (2–4 weeks): Define tiering rules, triggering events, dispute handling, and evidence retention. Map to your system of record.
3. Scale (4–12 weeks): Expand to the full third-party inventory, train stakeholders, and operationalize remediation governance.

Timelines vary based on portfolio size, data hygiene in your third-party inventory, and whether procurement/legal are aligned on contractual triggers.

---

Compliance and regulatory mapping (how to defend use of ratings)

Use ratings as ongoing monitoring inputs and document how they feed decisions tied to guidance:

• OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (2013): Map ratings monitoring to ongoing monitoring expectations, and document escalation, issue ownership, and board reporting where applicable.
• FFIEC third-party guidance: Use ratings to support ongoing monitoring and risk identification, but keep due diligence and contract management documented.
• NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022): Treat ratings as part of supplier risk monitoring. Document how monitoring ties to supplier risk response actions.
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022: Use ratings as a supporting input for supplier monitoring and information security in supplier relationships (keep your own control mapping in your ISMS documentation).
• EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (2019): Ratings can inform ongoing monitoring of outsourced service providers, but you still need documented oversight, exit planning, and criticality-based governance.

Regulators and auditors will ask: what decision did you make, based on what evidence, approved by whom, and how you tracked remediation. A rating alone rarely satisfies that chain.

---

Real-world scenarios (where each fits best)

Scenario A: Mid-market fintech with OCC-style discipline

• Context: 300 third parties, tight risk appetite for critical SaaS and data processors, frequent audits.
• Best fit: A workflow-oriented approach that produces assessment packets and tracks remediation with an audit trail. UpGuard often aligns well with this operating model ².

Scenario B: Global enterprise with 10,000+ third parties

• Context: Central TPRM team needs scalable tiering, executive dashboards, consistent score language.
• Best fit: A standardized scorecard platform with broad portfolio reporting. SecurityScorecard often aligns with this operating model ².

Scenario C: Healthcare network managing fourth-party exposure questions

• Context: Vendors rely on sub-processors; you need fast screening plus a defensible escalation path for critical relationships.
• Best fit: Either can work, but your decision should hinge on workflow maturity and how you document follow-up actions, not on the score itself.

---

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

Use case	Choose UpGuard if…	Choose SecurityScorecard if…
Defensible due diligence artifacts	You need questionnaires/evidence workflows closely tied to monitoring outputs.	You already have a strong GRC workflow and primarily need an external rating signal.
Large-scale tiering	You can invest time tuning alerts and focusing on critical tiers.	You need standardized reporting across very large populations and stakeholder familiarity.
Regulated financial services oversight	You expect to show process rigor, remediation tracking, and exception governance.	You expect to emphasize standardized metrics for oversight committees, with strong internal runbooks behind the score.
Procurement-driven programs	Procurement needs clear escalation packages and remediation requests.	Procurement needs a simple, standardized score for gating and supplier comparisons.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are security ratings acceptable evidence for third-party due diligence?

They are better treated as ongoing monitoring signals, not proof of control effectiveness. For regulated environments, pair ratings with documented due diligence, governance, and remediation tracking (OCC Bulletin 2013-29, 2013; NIST SP 800-161r1, 2022).

How do I keep ratings aligned to risk appetite?

Define decision rules by tier: what score drop triggers a review, what findings trigger escalation, and what time-to-remediate you require. Document exception approvals so your residual risk position is clear.

Do these tools replace SIG questionnaires or SOC 2 reports?

No. Ratings observe external signals; SIG responses and SOC 2 reports provide different assurance artifacts. Many teams use ratings to decide where to request SOC 2, pen test summaries, or targeted evidence.

What’s the most common implementation failure?

Alert fatigue. If you don’t define thresholds, ownership, and a dispute process, the tool becomes a dashboard nobody trusts, and your defensible program weakens.

How should I test accuracy during a pilot?

Pick a representative sample: critical SaaS, niche suppliers, subsidiaries, and newly onboarded third parties. Validate asset attribution, confirm whether known issues appear, and test how easily you can document follow-up actions.

Footnotes

1. OCC Bulletin 2013-29

2. vendor product materials

3. UpGuard product materials

4. SecurityScorecard product materials