Vanta vs Daydream: Third Party Due Diligence Comparison

Most teams evaluating “vanta vs daydream” are trying to solve the same hard problem: make third party risk decisions that match risk appetite, prove control effectiveness, and stand up to audit and examiner scrutiny without burying the security team in tickets and spreadsheets.

The tools approach that problem from different starting points. Vanta is widely adopted for compliance automation (SOC 2, ISO 27001, and similar programs) and extends into vendor questionnaires and trust reporting. It tends to fit teams where the control library, evidence, and audit workflows are the center of gravity, and third party due diligence is one workstream among many.

Daydream is built specifically for third party due diligence. The center of gravity is the lifecycle: intake, inherent risk, scoping, questionnaire and evidence requests, review, remediation, approvals, renewals, and reporting. In practice, that difference matters because “defensible program” outcomes usually come down to whether you can show consistent decisions, documented rationale, and follow-through across the third party population.

Side-by-side comparison (Vanta vs Daydream)

Dimension	Vanta	Daydream
Primary design focus	Compliance automation and audit evidence workflows, with third party questionnaires as an adjacent capability 1	Purpose-built third party due diligence workflows, designed around intake-to-approval lifecycle 2
Best fit “center of gravity”	Audit-readiness, control mapping, continuous evidence collection	Due diligence operations, risk-tiering, reviewer workflows, documented decisioning
Third party intake + triage	Intake typically starts from a request + questionnaire flow; triage is often process-defined by the team rather than a dedicated due diligence operating model 1	Structured intake, scoping, inherent risk, routing, approvals, and renewals as first-class workflow steps 2
Questionnaires + evidence collection	Strong for sending/security questionnaires and tracking responses alongside trust artifacts, aligned with Vanta’s broader compliance posture 1	Oriented around evidence-backed review and review notes tied to due diligence decisions 2
Control effectiveness narrative	Strong in control-to-evidence story for internal controls; third party control effectiveness is typically inferred through questionnaire/evidence review	Focuses on documenting third party control effectiveness conclusions, compensating controls, exceptions, and approvals in the due diligence record
Reporting for leadership	Compliance and readiness reporting; third party reporting depends on how much you standardize your workflow inside Vanta	Third party portfolio reporting aligned to lifecycle status, risk tier, overdue reviews, approvals, and exceptions
Integration posture	Broad integrations oriented around compliance evidence sources (IdP, cloud, device mgmt, etc.) 3	Integrations are oriented to due diligence workflows; typically fewer out-of-box integrations than long-established compliance platforms 4
Enterprise procurement optics	Recognized brand in compliance automation, often easier through enterprise RFPs due to market penetration	Newer platform with less enterprise brand recognition and smaller installed base; may require more security/procurement education
Operational model	Best for teams that want to centralize compliance operations and treat third party questionnaires as an extension	Best for teams that want third party due diligence to run as its own governed program, with consistent decisions

What each tool is “really” doing for your program

Vanta: compliance automation first, third party workflows second

In our experience evaluating these tools, Vanta wins when your primary pain is evidence collection and audit workflows. If the CISO’s mandate is “close SOC 2 gaps, keep ISO surveillance audits clean, reduce manual screenshots,” Vanta’s model maps well to that operating reality ¹.

Where Vanta can be enough for third party due diligence:

• You have a smaller third party population, or you tier aggressively and only run deep reviews on a handful of critical third parties.
• Your due diligence program relies mainly on standardized questionnaires, a small set of required artifacts (SOC 2, ISO cert, pen test letter), and basic tracking.
• Your “defensibility” bar is satisfied by having a recorded request, a completed questionnaire, and attached artifacts, plus clear ownership.

Where Vanta typically needs process glue:

• Consistent risk-tiering logic connected to risk appetite.
• Review governance: who must sign off for high-risk third parties, what exceptions look like, and how compensating controls get documented.

Vanta pros

1. Audit-readiness orientation: strong alignment to control frameworks and evidence tracking for internal compliance programs ¹.
2. Integration ecosystem: integrations are a core part of the product value proposition for automated evidence ³.
3. Market adoption: easier internal sell when stakeholders already associate Vanta with SOC 2 and ISO automation.

Vanta cons (product-level, not generic TPRM issues)

1. Third party due diligence is not the product’s primary design center, so deep lifecycle governance (intake → tier → scope → review → approval → renewal) can require tailoring your process to the tool’s structure ¹.
2. Decisioning documentation can feel secondary to evidence/audit artifacts; teams often add additional conventions to capture rationale, exceptions, and compensating controls consistently.
3. Regulated-program specificity varies by institution: if your examiner expectations map tightly to third party oversight artifacts and committee approvals, you may spend time translating Vanta outputs into examiner-ready narratives.

Daydream: due diligence lifecycle and decision quality

Daydream’s differentiation is straightforward: it is purpose-built for third party due diligence, rather than adapted from a broader GRC or compliance automation suite ². Teams we’ve worked with tend to evaluate it when their bottleneck is not “send a questionnaire,” but “run a consistent, reviewable process across dozens or hundreds of third parties.”

Where Daydream tends to fit:

• You need tighter coupling between risk appetite and review depth (what you ask for, who reviews, what’s required for approval).
• You want a stronger “defensible program” story: consistent workflows, timestamps, reviewer notes, approvals, exception handling, and renewal discipline.
• Your due diligence program includes more than security questionnaires, such as privacy, business continuity, subcontractor/4th party exposure, and data flow context (implemented as part of your workflow design).

Daydream pros

1. Workflow-first TPDD: designed around intake, triage, scoping, reviews, approvals, and renewals as the core object of work ².
2. Better fit for governance-heavy environments: supports a cleaner audit trail for why a third party was approved, under what conditions, and who accepted residual risk.
3. Operational clarity: easier to run due diligence as a program with queues, SLAs, and portfolio reporting aligned to lifecycle state.

Daydream cons (must be real product-level issues)

1. Newer platform with smaller customer base than established compliance automation vendors, which can increase perceived procurement risk in conservative enterprises ⁴.
2. Narrower scope than full GRC suites and compliance automation platforms; you may still need separate tooling for internal control evidence automation and audit workflows ⁴.
3. Fewer out-of-box integrations than long-established vendors in adjacent categories; plan for some manual steps or custom integration work depending on your stack ⁴.
4. Lower brand recognition in enterprise RFPs, which can slow down stakeholder alignment even if the workflow fit is strong.

Cost and resource considerations (what you should budget for)

Public, universally applicable pricing for either tool is typically not stable enough to treat as a fixed benchmark. Both Vanta and Daydream commonly sell on an annual subscription basis with pricing that varies by company size and scope ⁵. If a vendor publishes a specific price point, treat it as a starting point, not an entitlement.

What drives total cost in practice:

• Volume of third parties in scope and the percent that require deep reviews.
• Number of reviewers (security, privacy, legal, BCM) and how often approvals are needed.
• Evidence expectations: artifact-heavy reviews create operational load no matter the platform.
• Program maturity: first-time formalization costs more because you are defining tiers, requirements, and governance.

Resourcing reality check:

• Vanta can reduce time spent on internal evidence, but you still need a TPDD owner to define tiering and review steps.
• Daydream can reduce operational drag in TPDD, but you still need policy decisions: risk tiers, required controls, exception paths, renewal cadence.

Implementation complexity and realistic timelines

Vanta implementation (typical pattern)

• Week 1–2: connect integrations, define core frameworks, assign control owners ¹.
• Week 2–6: stabilize evidence workflows, remediate control gaps, build repeatable audit artifacts.
• Third party questionnaires can start early, but a consistent due diligence operating model usually takes longer because it depends on internal governance.

Daydream implementation (typical pattern)

• Week 1–2: define intake fields, risk tiers aligned to risk appetite, routing rules, and approval roles.
• Week 2–6: migrate your third party inventory and active reviews, standardize evidence requirements by tier, set renewal triggers.
• Faster time-to-value if you already know your due diligence policy. Slower if you are still negotiating what “high risk” means inside your business.

(These are practical ranges based on how teams deploy workflow tools; treat as planning guidance, not vendor commitments.)

Compliance and regulatory mapping (what “defensible” needs to show)

A defensible third party due diligence program generally needs artifacts that map to widely cited guidance:

• OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (Third-Party Relationships): due diligence, contract structuring, ongoing monitoring, and board oversight. Your tool should help you show consistent due diligence and monitoring records by tier.
• FFIEC Architecture, Infrastructure, and Operations booklets (including outsourcing technology services guidance): examiner focus on governance, oversight, and ongoing monitoring. Expect questions about critical third parties and concentration risk.
• NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022): supply chain risk management; useful for structuring security control expectations and supplier risk response.
• EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (2019): register of outsourcing, criticality assessments, and oversight expectations for financial institutions in the EU.
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022: Annex A includes supplier relationship controls (A.5.19, A.5.20, A.5.21). Tools help with evidence, but you still must define and enforce the process.

Tool implication:

• Vanta tends to help most with ISO/SOC alignment and evidence handling.
• Daydream tends to help most with the examiner narrative: tiering, review depth, approval trail, and renewal discipline.

Real-world scenarios (where each fits best)

Choose Vanta when:

1. Startup to mid-market security team is thin, and your top objective is SOC 2/ISO readiness with continuous evidence.
2. You have low-to-moderate third party risk or a small number of critical third parties.
3. Your stakeholders want one platform to anchor compliance operations, with TP questionnaires as a supporting workflow.

Choose Daydream when:

1. You have many third parties and recurring reviews, and cycle time is driving business friction.
2. You face banking/fintech, healthcare, or enterprise customer scrutiny where the question is “show me your decisions and governance,” not only “show me your questionnaire.”
3. You need stronger alignment between risk appetite and due diligence depth, plus clear exception handling and renewals.

Decision matrix (use-case based, no blanket pick)

Your situation	Tool pattern that usually fits
Audit-readiness (SOC 2/ISO) is the top priority; TPDD is secondary	Vanta-led
Third party oversight is a board/examiner focus; approvals and renewals must be airtight	Daydream-led
You need one place to run control testing/evidence for internal controls	Vanta-led
You already have compliance tooling, but TPDD is failing on throughput and consistency	Daydream-led
Small team, small third party population, low risk appetite for implementation work	Vanta-led
Dedicated TPRM function, clear tiers, multiple reviewers, frequent renewals	Daydream-led

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Vanta replace a third party risk management platform?

For lighter-weight programs, it can cover questionnaires and tracking. For governance-heavy TPDD with tiering, approvals, and renewal rigor, teams often need a workflow model that is more explicitly due-diligence-centric ¹.

Can Daydream replace compliance automation tools like Vanta?

Daydream is built for third party due diligence, not end-to-end audit evidence automation across your internal controls ⁴. Many teams pair a TPDD tool with a separate compliance automation platform.

Which is better for demonstrating “control effectiveness” of third parties?

Vanta supports collecting artifacts and questionnaire responses; that can support your conclusion ¹. Daydream is oriented to documenting the conclusion itself, including rationale, exceptions, and approvals, which often matters more under examiner review ².

What should we pilot to compare them fairly?

Pick 10 third parties across tiers and run the same workflow: intake, tiering, evidence request, review notes, exception handling, approval, and renewal setup. Compare cycle time, reviewer workload, and whether the audit trail reads cleanly without extra spreadsheets.

How do these tools map to OCC 2013-29 and EBA 2019 expectations?

Both can store due diligence artifacts, but your defensibility comes from consistency: documented criticality/tiering, evidence requirements by tier, approval authority, and ongoing monitoring records ⁶.

Footnotes

1. Vanta website/docs, accessed 2026

2. Daydream website/docs, accessed 2026

3. Vanta website/integrations, accessed 2026

4. Daydream website, accessed 2026

5. Vanta website, accessed 2026; Source: Daydream website, accessed 2026

6. OCC Bulletin 2013-29; Source: EBA Outsourcing Guidelines, 2019