Vanta vs SecurityScorecard: Third Party Risk Management Comparison

Vanta and SecurityScorecard solve different parts of third-party risk. Vanta is strongest when your goal is to collect and publish your own compliance evidence (SOC 2, ISO 27001) and share it via trust artifacts. SecurityScorecard is strongest when your goal is continuous external monitoring of third parties using security ratings and signals.

Key takeaways:

• Vanta supports internal control evidence and audit readiness; it is not a dedicated third-party due diligence workflow system.
• SecurityScorecard provides external, continuous third-party risk signals; it cannot replace control testing, contract reviews, or your due diligence file.
• Many mature programs pair both: Vanta for your regulatory posture and trust center, SecurityScorecard for monitoring high-risk third parties between formal reviews.

“Vanta vs SecurityScorecard” reads like a single buying decision, but CISOs and Compliance Officers usually face two different problems: (1) proving control effectiveness inside your own environment, and (2) governing third-party risk across your supply chain in a way that is consistent with your risk appetite and defensible to regulators.

Vanta is widely known for compliance automation and audit evidence collection. Teams use it to operationalize controls, map them to frameworks, and package evidence for auditors and customers. That same capability can support parts of third-party risk management (TPRM) indirectly, mainly by strengthening your own control environment and by making it easier to answer third-party questionnaires about your program.

SecurityScorecard is a third-party cyber risk ratings and monitoring platform. It gives you an outside-in view of internet-facing signals for third parties and your own organization, then tracks changes over time. That fits programs that need continuous monitoring and triage, especially where the regulator expects ongoing oversight rather than “point-in-time” assessments (see OCC Bulletin 2013-29; FFIEC, “Outsourced Cloud Computing,” 2021).

The decision comes down to which gap hurts more: audit defensibility of internal controls (Vanta) or continuous third-party cyber risk surveillance (SecurityScorecard).

Side-by-side comparison (vanta vs securityscorecard)

Dimension	Vanta	SecurityScorecard
Primary job-to-be-done	Internal compliance program execution: control tracking, evidence collection, audit workflows, and sharing trust artifacts	External cyber risk monitoring for third parties (and your own org) using ratings and observable security signals
Best fit in a TPRM lifecycle	Supports “prove our posture” and parts of intake (sharing policies, SOC reports, and control descriptions); not a full due diligence workflow	Supports ongoing monitoring and event-driven reassessment; complements questionnaires and document-based due diligence
Evidence type	First-party evidence from your systems and processes (e.g., control operation evidence)	Third-party external telemetry and scanning-derived signals; does not create internal evidence of a third party’s controls
Assessment method	Control-based, mapped to compliance frameworks and audits	Signal-based, continuous; useful for detecting drift and new exposures
Workflow depth for third parties	Typically centered on your own compliance; third-party workflows require process overlays outside the tool	Vendor/third-party portfolios, monitoring, alerting, and triage; due diligence artifacts still live elsewhere
Reporting for execs/board	Compliance status and audit readiness narratives; customer-facing trust artifacts	Portfolio risk views, trends, and exceptions; stronger for “what changed this month” oversight
Regulatory defensibility	Strong for demonstrating your internal control environment and audit trail; indirect for TPRM	Strong for demonstrating continuous monitoring, documented follow-up, and risk-based prioritization; must be paired with due diligence files
Typical operating model	Compliance + Security own it; heavy coordination with IT	Security / TPRM analysts own it; procurement and business owners consume outputs

Vanta: what it does well (and where it fits)

Capabilities you can verify publicly

Vanta positions itself around compliance automation, security monitoring, and audit readiness, with support for common frameworks like SOC 2 and ISO 27001, and workflows to collect evidence from connected systems ¹. In practice, that matters for TPRM in two ways:

1. You can answer third-party questionnaires faster because your policies, control narratives, and audit artifacts are organized.
2. You can show a defensible internal program during regulator exams and customer diligence, which reduces friction when your critical third parties ask how you govern access, change, incident response, and data handling.

Where Vanta helps TPRM teams most

• Risk appetite alignment: If your risk appetite requires strong internal controls before onboarding sensitive third parties, Vanta helps you tighten preconditions (SSO/MFA, logging, vulnerability management) and document them.
• Control effectiveness storytelling: You can show that your controls are designed and operating, then reuse those artifacts in third-party negotiations and DPAs.
• Regulatory posture packaging: For organizations that regularly face customer audits, Vanta can reduce the scramble for evidence and create repeatable audit trails.

Vanta: genuine pros

• Audit and evidence workflows are the product center, so you get strong traceability from control to evidence to auditor request ².
• Framework mapping supports structured conversations with auditors and customers around scope and control coverage ³.
• Operationalizes baseline security practices by tracking control status against a defined program ³.

Vanta: genuine cons (product-level)

• Not a purpose-built third-party due diligence workflow tool. You will still need a system of record for third-party inventory, inherent risk scoring, and assessment packages, or you will build that process outside Vanta.
• Third-party monitoring is not the core construct. If your pain is continuous oversight of third parties, Vanta won’t replace a ratings/signals platform.
• Integration coverage varies by environment. If your stack includes niche ITSM, ERP/procurement, or bespoke data sources, expect custom work or manual evidence for gaps ⁴.

SecurityScorecard: what it does well (and where it fits)

Capabilities you can verify publicly

SecurityScorecard is known for security ratings and continuous monitoring based on observable signals, with portfolio views and workflows to monitor third parties over time ⁵. For TPRM, this directly supports:

• Continuous monitoring expectations (document the watch function, alerts, and follow-up).
• Risk-based prioritization (triage your limited assessment resources to the third parties showing deteriorating signals).

Where SecurityScorecard fits best in a defensible program

• Ongoing oversight between annual reviews. Many teams do annual reassessments because of bandwidth, not because that matches their risk appetite. Continuous signals help you decide when to pull a third party into an out-of-cycle review.
• Large third-party populations. If you have hundreds or thousands of third parties, external monitoring helps you segment: critical, high, medium, low, and focus deep due diligence where it counts.
• Incident-driven governance. Security ratings and alerts can be used to trigger contract clauses, escalation paths, and evidence requests when a third party’s posture changes.

SecurityScorecard: genuine pros

• Designed for third-party cyber monitoring. The unit of value is a third party and their risk signals over time ⁶.
• Supports scale. Portfolios and monitoring workflows align with large supply chains where “one assessment at a time” breaks down.
• Good executive narrative for drift. It is easier to show “what changed” and “what we did about it” in a monthly risk committee.

SecurityScorecard: genuine cons (product-level)

• Ratings are not control testing. A score does not prove a third party’s internal control effectiveness for your use case; regulators still expect documented due diligence and follow-up for critical relationships (see OCC Bulletin 2013-29).
• False positives and context gaps happen. External signals can reflect shared hosting, subsidiaries, or misattribution. Your team needs a triage and dispute process.
• Limited visibility into non-internet-facing risks. Insider threats, SDLC rigor, data governance, and subprocessor management often require questionnaires, audits, or attestations beyond ratings.

Cost and resource considerations (what you can plan for without inventing pricing)

Vanta cost model (typical pattern)

Vanta pricing is generally sold as a subscription, commonly packaged by framework and scope, with add-ons depending on capabilities ⁷. Budget for:

• Compliance owner time (policy/control owners)
• Evidence remediation work in IT/security (closing control gaps)

SecurityScorecard cost model (typical pattern)

SecurityScorecard is generally sold as a subscription tied to monitoring capabilities and the number of companies/entities you track, with enterprise options ⁸. Budget for:

• Analyst time for triage and follow-up
• Time with procurement/vendor owners to enforce remediation asks

A practical way to compare is labor substitution:

• Vanta reduces internal evidence chase time.
• SecurityScorecard reduces time spent guessing which third parties warrant attention this quarter.

Implementation complexity and realistic timelines

Timelines vary by scope and stakeholder alignment; avoid committing to calendar promises in procurement until you confirm integrations and ownership.

Vanta implementation reality

• Fastest path: connect common cloud identity and endpoint tools, map one framework, assign control owners.
• Where teams slip: spending weeks debating control language instead of aligning to a risk appetite and “good enough” baseline, then iterating.

SecurityScorecard implementation reality

• Fastest path: upload/build third-party inventory, segment critical third parties, set alert thresholds, define escalation runbooks.
• Where teams slip: no agreed process for disputes, exceptions, and “what do we do when the score drops,” which leads to noise and stakeholder fatigue.

Compliance and regulatory mapping (what each supports)

You are building artifacts for examiners, auditors, and internal governance. These are the anchors most teams map to:

• OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (Third-Party Relationships): expects risk management across the lifecycle, including due diligence, contract provisions, and ongoing monitoring.

  • Vanta supports your internal control posture and documentation discipline.
  • SecurityScorecard supports ongoing monitoring signals and follow-up tracking.

• FFIEC “Outsourced Cloud Computing” (2021): emphasizes governance, risk management, and oversight of cloud outsourced relationships.

  • SecurityScorecard helps with continuous oversight signals for cloud providers and key SaaS third parties.
  • Vanta helps show your own governance controls and audit readiness.

• NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022) (Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management): focuses on SCRM processes and integrating supply chain risk into security programs.

  • SecurityScorecard aligns to monitoring and supplier risk surveillance.
  • Vanta aligns to documenting internal processes and controls that support SCRM governance.

• EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (EBA/GL/2019/02): requires maintaining registers, risk assessments, and ongoing oversight for outsourced arrangements.

  • SecurityScorecard supports continuous monitoring, but you still need the outsourcing register and due diligence record.
  • Vanta supports evidence discipline, not the outsourcing register as a primary feature set.

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022: management system and control set; Annex A includes supplier relationship controls (e.g., A.5.19, A.5.20).

  • Vanta supports ISO program execution and evidence.
  • SecurityScorecard can provide monitoring inputs for supplier controls, but it is not an ISMS by itself.

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

Choose a Vanta-led approach if:

• You are a small compliance team that must prove internal control effectiveness and pass audits with limited bandwidth.
• Your highest friction is customer due diligence and audits, not third-party monitoring.
• Your regulatory posture is audit-driven (SOC 2 / ISO) and you need repeatable evidence handling.

Choose a SecurityScorecard-led approach if:

• You have a large third-party ecosystem and need ongoing monitoring beyond annual reviews.
• Your risk appetite requires continuous oversight for critical third parties, with documented triggers for reassessment.
• Your program is mature enough to run triage, disputes, and remediation follow-up without burning stakeholder goodwill.

Real-world fit scenarios

1. Series B SaaS selling to enterprises: Vanta first, because sales cycles demand trust artifacts and audit readiness; add SecurityScorecard later for critical subprocessors.
2. Regional bank with regulator scrutiny: SecurityScorecard to operationalize continuous monitoring for critical third parties, paired with internal governance controls; Vanta helps if ISO/SOC evidence sprawl is hurting audit response.
3. Global enterprise with decentralized procurement: SecurityScorecard for a portfolio view and consistent monitoring signals; Vanta for standardizing internal control evidence across business units.

Decision matrix (use case-based, no “pick this”)

Use case	Better starting point	Why
Passing SOC 2/ISO with limited staff	Vanta	Internal control tracking and evidence collection are the daily workflow
Reducing blind spots across 500+ third parties	SecurityScorecard	Portfolio monitoring and ongoing signals scale better than questionnaire-only programs
Building a defensible TPRM narrative for regulators	Depends on your gap	If your gap is “we don’t monitor,” SecurityScorecard. If your gap is “we can’t prove internal controls,” Vanta
Trigger-based reassessments (score drops, new findings)	SecurityScorecard	External signals provide a practical trigger mechanism
Answering third-party security questionnaires about your own program	Vanta	Organized policies, control narratives, and audit artifacts

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Vanta replace a third-party risk management (TPRM) platform?

No. Vanta is oriented around your internal compliance controls and audit evidence ³. It can support TPRM indirectly through better artifacts and control documentation, but it does not function as a full third-party due diligence workflow system.

Can SecurityScorecard be used as “due diligence” for critical third parties?

It can be a due diligence input, especially for continuous monitoring, but it does not replace questionnaires, SOC reports, onsite assessments, or contract reviews for critical relationships (see OCC Bulletin 2013-29). Treat ratings as a signal that drives follow-up, not as the follow-up.

Which is better for demonstrating control effectiveness?

Vanta is closer to control effectiveness because it centers on mapped controls and evidence collection tied to audits ³. SecurityScorecard reflects observable external security posture, which may or may not correlate with internal control operation for your specific risk.

What’s a common failure mode with SecurityScorecard programs?

Teams buy monitoring, then fail to define escalation paths and dispute handling. Without runbooks, alerts become noise and the business stops responding to remediation requests.

Can we justify both tools to finance?

Yes, if you separate outcomes. Vanta can reduce audit evidence labor and improve your own regulatory posture; SecurityScorecard can reduce third-party monitoring gaps and help you focus scarce assessment capacity on the riskiest changes (Sources: Vanta and SecurityScorecard product positioning).

Footnotes

1. Vanta website and product materials

2. Vanta website/product

3. Vanta

4. Vanta integration listings vary by plan and ecosystem

5. SecurityScorecard website and documentation

6. SecurityScorecard

7. Vanta website; pricing is often quote-based

8. SecurityScorecard website; pricing is typically quote-based