Vanta vs Sprinto: Compliance Automation Comparison

Vanta and Sprinto are both compliance automation platforms that help teams build audit-ready evidence for frameworks like SOC 2 and ISO 27001, but they differ in how they balance speed, workflow control, and managed support. Your choice comes down to how much internal compliance capacity you have, your risk appetite for manual work, and how defensible you need your control evidence to be.

Key takeaways:

• Vanta is typically a fit for teams that want broad compliance automation with a large ecosystem and mature auditor-facing workflows.
• Sprinto is typically a fit for teams that want guided implementation and hands-on support to reach audit readiness with a smaller internal team.
• Neither tool replaces third-party risk management; for OCC/FFIEC-style expectations, you’ll still need a separate defensible third-party oversight layer.

“Vanta vs Sprinto” is usually shorthand for a more specific question CISOs and Compliance Officers face: which platform will get us to audit readiness faster without weakening control effectiveness or creating evidence that won’t survive scrutiny?

In our experience evaluating these tools, both Vanta and Sprinto can materially reduce evidence collection overhead for common frameworks (SOC 2, ISO 27001) by connecting to your core systems (identity provider, endpoint management, cloud provider) and continuously checking a subset of controls. The real separation is operational: how you assign ownership, how exceptions are tracked, how much guidance you receive, and whether the program you build is defensible under your regulatory posture.

If you operate under bank-style expectations for third-party oversight, keep your scope straight. OCC Bulletin 2013-29 and related FFIEC guidance focus on life-cycle third-party relationships, contract controls, and ongoing monitoring. Compliance automation tools support your internal control environment, but they won’t independently satisfy third-party due diligence program requirements.

Side-by-side comparison (Vanta vs Sprinto)

Category	Vanta	Sprinto
Core focus	Compliance automation and audit readiness for security/compliance frameworks (SOC 2, ISO 27001) with evidence collection and monitoring	Compliance automation and audit readiness with an emphasis on guided implementation and support-led programs
Evidence collection	Integrations that pull evidence from common cloud, identity, ticketing, and device tools; continuous monitoring for certain controls 1	Integrations to pull evidence plus structured guidance to complete remaining controls; continuous monitoring for certain checks 1
Control management	Control mapping, policy management, and workflows to assign/control ownership and track progress (as described in product materials)	Control mapping, policy management, and task-based workflows with guided steps (as described in product materials)
Auditor collaboration	Auditor-facing exports/reports and an organized evidence repository designed for audits 2	Audit support features and evidence organization aimed at smoother auditor interactions 2
Ease of implementation	Works well if you already have system owners and clean admin access; otherwise setup can stall on integrations and scoping decisions	Works well for smaller teams that need a clearer “do this next” path and support to drive completion
Best-fit team profile	Compliance function with at least part-time program ownership, plus security/IT partners who can connect systems	Lean compliance/security teams that want more structured help and accountability to hit deadlines
Limits (typical)	Automation covers what your systems can prove; policy/process controls still need human evidence	Same core limitation; guided support helps, but still depends on your internal process maturity

What each tool is (and is not) in a defensible program

Both platforms primarily address internal compliance evidence and control operations. They help you demonstrate that your controls are designed and operating, but the boundary matters:

• They are not third-party risk management systems. You can store some third-party-related artifacts as evidence, but OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (2013) expects governance, due diligence, contracting, ongoing monitoring, and termination planning across third-party relationships. That usually requires dedicated third-party workflows beyond a compliance automation repository.
• They do support defensibility for internal controls by improving evidence consistency and making exceptions visible. That aligns with the spirit of “control effectiveness” you’ll see across NIST control-based programs and ISO management-system expectations.

Vanta: detailed analysis (capabilities, fit, and tradeoffs)

Where Vanta tends to fit

Vanta is often selected by teams that want a mature compliance automation platform with a broad set of integrations and a workflow that can scale across multiple frameworks over time. If you have a clear risk appetite, defined control owners, and can make decisions quickly about scope boundaries, Vanta can become the “system of record” for audit evidence.

Strengths (practitioner view)

• Integration-driven evidence collection: Strong fit if your environment is already standardized (Okta/Azure AD, AWS/GCP/Azure, MDM/EDR, ticketing). The system can pull evidence continuously for select technical controls based on integration signals.
• Audit-facing organization: Teams tend to value a central evidence repository and structured exports that reduce audit churn.
• Program scalability: Works better as frameworks and audits stack up, because control mappings and evidence reuse become more meaningful.

Cons (real, program-level)

• Automation ceiling is real: If your controls depend on judgment or process (access reviews that require manager sign-off quality, risk acceptance rationale, exception governance), you still need disciplined human workflows and artifacts. The platform won’t fix weak operational hygiene.
• Setup friction for messy environments: If identity/device inventory is incomplete or ownership is unclear, teams can spend weeks just aligning prerequisites before the tool pays off.
• Workflow can outpace governance: Faster evidence collection can create a false sense of control effectiveness unless you also define exception criteria, compensating controls, and approval authority.

Sprinto: detailed analysis (capabilities, fit, and tradeoffs)

Where Sprinto tends to fit

Sprinto is often selected by lean teams that want a clearer path to audit readiness, including more structured guidance and support. If you’re building the plane while flying it, Sprinto’s approach can help you maintain momentum and reduce decision fatigue.

Strengths (practitioner view)

• Guided implementation: The product experience and support model are typically positioned to help teams understand what “good” looks like for common frameworks, then execute.
• Operational clarity for small teams: Tasking and structured workflows can reduce the number of open-ended compliance decisions a small team must make at once.
• Audit readiness focus: Strong alignment to the practical goal most teams have in year one: get through the audit without creating an evidence mess you can’t maintain.

Cons (real, program-level)

• Still depends on internal owners: Even with guidance, you must assign control owners who can approve policies, run access reviews, and remediate exceptions. No platform removes that need.
• Integration coverage varies by environment: If you use less common tools, you may end up with more manual evidence collection or workaround processes. That increases ongoing effort and introduces inconsistency risk.
• Process maturity gap can persist: Guidance gets you to “done,” but long-term defensibility still requires governance: risk acceptance, exception management, and periodic control testing discipline.

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

Choose Vanta when:

1. You have internal program ownership (even if part-time) and can run control operations monthly/quarterly without external push.
2. Your regulatory posture demands repeatability across multiple frameworks and business units. You want a durable evidence system, not a one-time audit sprint.
3. Your risk appetite is low for manual evidence and you can standardize tooling to maximize automated signals.

Choose Sprinto when:

1. You have a lean team and need more structure to keep implementation moving.
2. You need speed-to-audit and prefer a guided model where the platform and support help you avoid common dead ends.
3. Your controls are still stabilizing and you need a practical baseline before you invest in deeper GRC workflows.

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

Public pricing for both tools is typically not fully posted as a flat rate, and packaging changes over time. In practice, plan around:

• Annual subscription pricing that scales with company size and/or compliance scope (framework count, connected systems).
• Implementation time from internal SMEs: You’ll need security/IT time for integrations (identity, cloud, endpoint, ticketing) and HR/legal time for policy/people controls.
• Audit costs are separate: Your CPA/auditor fees and readiness consulting (if any) are not replaced by the platform.

Budgeting guidance we give teams:

• Treat the tool as a compliance operations headcount multiplier, not a headcount replacement.
• Ask each vendor for a quote that itemizes: frameworks included, integration limits, auditor collaboration features, and any premium support.

Implementation complexity and realistic timelines

Timelines depend less on the platform and more on your prerequisite hygiene.

A realistic plan most teams can execute:

1. Week 1–2: Scope and control ownership
   • Define audit scope, in-scope systems, and control owners.
   • Decide your exception policy (what gets accepted, by whom, and for how long).
2. Week 2–4: Integrations and baselines
   • Connect identity provider, cloud accounts, device management, ticketing, and HRIS if supported.
   • Fix inventory gaps (devices, users, privileged accounts).
3. Week 4–8: Evidence completion
   • Close policy, training, and operational controls that require human artifacts.
   • Run at least one cycle of key recurring controls (access review, vulnerability remediation sampling, incident tabletop if required by your framework).
4. Week 8+: Stabilization
   • Shift from “audit project” to “control operations,” with calendar-driven checks.

Common mistake: teams connect integrations first, then argue about scope later. That burns time and creates noisy exceptions.

Compliance and regulatory mapping (what these tools support, and what they don’t)

These tools are commonly used to operationalize evidence for:

• SOC 2 (AICPA Trust Services Criteria): evidence collection, policy management, and recurring control operations artifacts.
• ISO/IEC 27001: ISMS documentation and evidence management (implementation varies by tool packaging and your ISMS maturity).

Where teams get tripped up is regulated third-party oversight:

• OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (2013) and FFIEC guidance emphasize third-party life-cycle governance (planning, due diligence, contracting, ongoing monitoring, termination). Compliance automation platforms can store related documents, but they don’t inherently run third-party due diligence workflows.
• NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022) focuses on cybersecurity supply chain risk management. You can align internal controls (asset management, access control, logging) in a compliance tool, but supplier risk assessment requires separate processes and tooling.
• EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (2019) require documented outsourcing registers, risk assessments, and ongoing monitoring. Again, evidence repositories help; they don’t create the outsourcing program.

Real-world scenarios (which tool fits)

1. Series B SaaS, SOC 2 Type I in 10–12 weeks
   • Sprinto often fits if you have one security lead and no dedicated compliance manager. You benefit from tighter guidance and task structure.
2. Mid-market SaaS with SOC 2 + ISO 27001 roadmap
   • Vanta often fits if you can standardize systems and want evidence reuse across multiple audits with less reinvention.
3. Fintech partnering with banks
   • Either tool can support SOC 2 evidence, but neither satisfies bank-style third-party oversight alone. You’ll still need a defensible third-party risk program aligned to OCC 2013-29 and FFIEC expectations.

Decision matrix (use-case driven, not a recommendation)

Your situation	Vanta tends to be a better match if…	Sprinto tends to be a better match if…
You need to scale across multiple frameworks	You want reuse across audits and can support ongoing control ops	You want to get to a stable baseline first, then expand
You have limited internal compliance capacity	You can still assign owners and manage workflows internally	You need more guided execution to stay on track
Your environment is standardized	You can maximize integrations and reduce manual evidence	You want structured completion even if some evidence stays manual
You care about defensibility under scrutiny	You can run disciplined exception governance and recurring reviews	You want structured guidance to avoid missing baseline artifacts

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Vanta or Sprinto cover third-party risk management requirements?

They can help you store evidence related to third parties, but they don’t replace a third-party risk program. For regulated expectations, map your program to OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (2013), FFIEC guidance, and NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022).

Which is faster for SOC 2 readiness?

Speed usually depends on your prerequisites: asset inventory, identity hygiene, and control ownership. Teams with lean staffing often prefer a more guided implementation approach; teams with mature internal ownership move fast on integration-heavy setups.

Will either tool reduce auditor back-and-forth?

Yes, if you maintain clean evidence, consistent naming, and clear control narratives. Auditors still ask questions when exceptions exist or when evidence doesn’t tie cleanly to the control statement.

Can either tool automate “process controls” like access reviews and risk exceptions?

They can track tasks and store artifacts, and some evidence can be pulled from connected systems. The judgment layer (review quality, exception approval authority, compensating controls) still requires humans and documented governance.

What should I ask on a demo to avoid surprises?

Ask for a live walkthrough of (1) integration coverage for your exact stack, (2) how exceptions are documented and approved, (3) auditor collaboration workflows, and (4) how multi-framework control mapping behaves after your first audit.

Footnotes

1. product documentation

2. product materials