Manager Solutions Engineering

Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, and Oneleet: how the fix-first model is different. An honest comparison of Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, and Oneleet. Each is genuinely good at what it does. None of them remediate findings, which is the one real gap Scadable is built to close. Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, and Oneleet are all real, well-built products, each genuinely good at parts of the compliance workflow. Vanta and Drata lead the category on breadth of frameworks and integrations, with large customer bases and mature self-serve motions. Secureframe competes at the same tier. Oneleet is the closest thing to a consolidated platform, combining AI risk review, code scanning, and pentest bundling. What none of the four do, by their own public product descriptions, is fix what they find. They identify a gap and hand it to a human to close. Scadable identifies the gap and closes it. That is not a knock on any of them. It is the honest shape of the category today, and it is worth naming plainly before making the one comparison that actually matters. What is Vanta actually good at? Vanta is the category leader by customer count, citing more than 16,000 customers and a dense wall of named logos across software companies. Its homepage leads with "trust," positions itself as an "Agentic Trust Platform," and backs that up with quantified time-saved metrics like thousands of hours saved annually and a large share of security questionnaires automated. Vanta's real strength is scale: broad framework coverage (SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS, FedRAMP, and more), a large integration catalog, and a self-serve-to-enterprise motion that has clearly worked for thousands of companies. If your need is broad, mature, self-serve coverage across many frameworks today, Vanta is a legitimate answer to that need. What is Drata actually good at? Drata sits at near feature parity with Vanta and uses almost identical language to describe itself, down to calling itself an "Agentic Trust Management Platform." It cites more than 8,500 customers and a 4.8 rating on G2, with its own metrics around audit-prep time reduction and hours saved annually. Like Vanta, Drata's strength is breadth: the same wide framework badge wall, a comparable integration footprint, and a product built for teams that want one dashboard covering everything from evidence collection to auditor-facing documentation. Drata's agentic layer automates evidence gathering and the paperwork that goes with it, which is a real and useful thing to automate well. What is Secureframe actually good at? Secureframe competes in the same tier as Vanta and Drata: evidence collection, continuous control monitoring, and audit-readiness workflows aimed at the same buyer. It is a known, credible option in this category for teams evaluating compliance automation platforms, and belongs in the same conversation as the other three. Its specific product depth is closer to Vanta and Drata's shape than to Oneleet's, built around the same evidence-and-monitoring core loop common to this category. What is Oneleet actually good at? Oneleet is the closest structural comparison to how Scadable is built: a single consolidated platform rather than a dashboard stitched to a separate audit process, combining AI-driven risk assessment, a code scanner, and pentest bundling in one place. It has real traction, a 4.9 rating on G2, more than 1,000 teams, and a $33 million Series A per public reporting. Oneleet's own homepage is also the most candid in the category about where its product stops: it describes its AI as reviewing evidence against control requirements and flagging issues. That is an honest, accurate description of what the tool does, and it is worth taking at face value rather than reading past it. Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, and Oneleet at a glance. | / | Genuine strength | Shared limitation | Scadable's approach | | Vanta | Largest customer base and logo density, deepest framework and integration breadth | Ends at a flagged gap list; remediation is manual | Identifies the gap and closes it | | Drata | Near-parity breadth with Vanta, strong G2 rating, mature agentic evidence automation | Automates the paperwork around a finding, not the fix | Writes the fix, not just the report | | Secureframe | Established, credible player in the same evidence-and-monitoring tier | Same category-wide pattern: evidence collection ends at a human handoff | Closes the finding inside the same pipeline that surfaced it | | Oneleet | Consolidated platform combining AI risk review, code scanning, and pentest referral | Own copy states it flags issues rather than fixing them | Reviews, fixes, and files, not just flags | What is the one real difference? Every one of these four platforms, by its own public positioning, ends at a list. Vanta and Drata's product loops are evidence collection, continuous monitoring, and questionnaire automation, all of which conclude with an open item for someone on your team to go close, in a pull request, a config change, or a Jira ticket outside the platform. Oneleet says this about itself directly: its AI reviews evidence against control requirements and flags issues. Flagging is genuinely useful. It is also, by every one of these four vendors' own description of their own product, where the automation stops. Scadable's product loop does not stop there. It identifies what needs to change, whether that is a missing control for SOC 2, a documentation gap under ISO 27001, or an actively exploited component across a device fleet under the Cyber Resilience Act, and then it writes the control, implements the configuration change, and closes the gap. The finding does not sit in a queue waiting for a human to get to it. That is the difference stated as plainly as it can be: they identify and flag, Scadable identifies and fixes. How does Scadable make sure its evidence can be trusted? Separately from the fix-versus-flag distinction, Scadable treats evidence integrity as a standing principle, not a feature. Every document and every approval Scadable generates lives in its own object storage, hashed, versioned, and write-once-read-many locked once finalized. Every document and approval carries a verification link. Nothing in that pipeline is a Google Doc that can be quietly edited after the fact. This matters because the entire value of compliance evidence is that it holds up to scrutiny months or years later, in front of an auditor or a regulator, exactly as it looked the day it was produced. Evidence that can be silently changed after the fact does not earn that trust, so Scadable's system is built so it cannot be. Frequently asked questions. What is the main difference between Scadable and Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, or Oneleet? All four collect evidence, monitor controls, and flag gaps for a human to close. Scadable closes the gap itself, writing the control, implementing the fix, and filing the report, not just producing a list of what is still open. Is Scadable a Vanta alternative? Scadable is a fix-first alternative for teams that want findings closed, not just flagged. If your priority is broad self-serve multi-framework coverage today across a large integration catalog, Vanta may genuinely be the better fit. If your priority is getting findings remediated, that is what Scadable is built around. Is Oneleet a good product? Yes. Oneleet is a well-built, consolidated platform bundling AI risk assessment, code scanning, and pentest referral, with real traction including a G2 rating of 4.9 and over 1,000 teams. Its own homepage copy describes its AI as reviewing evidence against control requirements and flagging issues, which is the same evidence-and-flag pattern shared across this category. Do Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, and Oneleet fix compliance and security findings automatically? No. All four are evidence-collection, monitoring, and questionnaire-automation platforms. Their product loops end with a list of open findings for a human to remediate, in a ticket, a pull request, or a spreadsheet, outside the platform itself. How does Scadable keep evidence trustworthy? Every document and approval Scadable generates lives in hashed, versioned, WORM-locked storage with a verification link. Once a piece of evidence is finalized it cannot be quietly edited, which matters because compliance evidence only has value if it holds up to scrutiny. Should I switch from Vanta or Drata to Scadable? That depends on what you actually need. If broad multi-framework self-serve coverage across a large number of integrations is your priority today, Vanta or Drata may be the right tool. If your findings keep piling up faster than your team can close them, Scadable is built specifically for that gap. Last reviewed: July 12, 2026. Where Scadable fits. Scadable is not trying to out-feature Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, or Oneleet on framework breadth or integration count. Breadth is table stakes at this point, any well-resourced team can build a wide badge wall and a long integrations list, and all four of these platforms already have. The differentiation is what happens after a gap is found: Scadable writes the fix and closes it, and every piece of evidence it produces is hashed, versioned, and verifiable on its own. If what you need today is broad, self-serve, multi-framework coverage across a mature integration catalog, one of the four platforms above may honestly be the right tool for that job. If what you need is for the findings to actually get closed instead of accumulating in a queue, that is what Scadable does. Book a call to see the fix-first model against your own stack.

Vanta has appointed John McCauley as Chief Financial Officer, overseeing finance and accounting whilst reporting to CEO Christina Cacioppo. McCauley brings over 20 years of experience scaling high-growth software companies. He joins from Calendly, where he served as Chief Operating Officer, helping expand the business to over 20 million users across 230-plus countries. Previously, as CFO at Seismic, he grew annual revenue from approximately $100 million to over $300 million and guided the company through Permira's majority investment in 2021. The appointment comes as Vanta surpasses $300 million in ARR, reaching the milestone just nine months after hitting $200 million. The company serves over 16,000 organisations and was recently named to the CNBC Disruptor 50 list.

Compliance Automation ROI calculator: how to justify the investment to your CFO. By LowerPlane Team June 8, 2026 Compliance Automation Return on Investment TL;DR: quick takeaways. * - Compliance automation reduces audit preparation time by 60-80%, saving hundreds of staff hours per cycle * - Evidence collection drops from 4-6 weeks of manual work to hours of automated collection * - A typical 50-person SaaS company saves $120,000-$200,000 annually with automation vs. manual compliance * - Multi-framework automation (SOC 2 + ISO 27001 + HIPAA) costs 60-70% less than managing each framework separately * - LowerPlane delivers these savings at 60% less than competitors like Vanta and Drata The true cost of manual compliance. Before you can make the ROI case for automation, you need to understand what manual compliance actually costs. Most companies significantly underestimate this number because compliance costs are spread across multiple departments and budget lines. Direct Costs. | Cost Item | Manual (Per Framework) | Frequency | Annual Total | | External auditor fees | $30,000-$80,000 | Annual | $30,000-$80,000 | | Compliance consultant | $15,000-$50,000 | Annual | $15,000-$50,000 | | Policy drafting (legal) | $20,000-$40,000 | Initial + annual review | $10,000-$20,000 | | Penetration testing | $10,000-$30,000 | Annual | $10,000-$30,000 | | Total Direct Costs (Single Framework) | $65,000-$180,000 | Hidden internal costs. The direct costs above are only part of the picture. The larger expense is the internal staff time consumed by manual compliance: Engineering team. * - 120-160 hours/year gathering evidence screenshots * - 40-80 hours/year responding to auditor questions * - 60-100 hours/year implementing remediation items * Total: 220-340 hours @ $100/hr = $22,000-$34,000 Security / GRC team. * - 200-300 hours/year managing the compliance program * - 80-120 hours/year on access reviews and vendor assessments * - 60-80 hours/year on policy updates and training * Total: 340-500 hours @ $85/hr = $28,900-$42,500 The real number: $120,000-$260,000 per framework, per year. When you add direct costs ($65K-$180K) to internal staff time ($51K-$77K), a single compliance framework costs $120,000-$260,000 annually through manual processes. Pursuing three frameworks (e.g., SOC 2 + ISO 27001 + HIPAA) can cost $300,000-$600,000 per year. Building the ROI case for automation. Compliance automation platforms reduce costs across every category listed above. Here's where the savings come from: 1. Evidence Collection: weeks to hours. Manual evidence collection is the single largest time sink in compliance. Teams spend 4-6 weeks before each audit taking screenshots of cloud configurations, exporting access lists, and compiling policy documents. Automation platforms connect directly to your infrastructure and collect evidence continuously. Manual Evidence Collection 120-160 engineering hours per audit cycle Automated Evidence Collection One-time integration setup, then continuous 2. Audit preparation: 60-80% reduction. With evidence collected automatically and compliance posture monitored in real time, audit preparation shrinks from a multi-week scramble to a brief review. Your GRC team reviews the dashboard, addresses any open items, and generates the audit package - typically in 1-2 weeks instead of 6-8. 3. Multi-Framework efficiency: 60-70% savings on additional frameworks. This is where automation delivers outsized returns. Because 80-90% of controls overlap between SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, and PCI-DSS, a multi-framework automation platform lets you reuse evidence and controls across certifications. Your second framework costs 30-40% of the first, not 100%. 4. Headcount savings. Without automation, growing companies often need to hire a dedicated compliance analyst ($90,000-$140,000/year) or compliance manager ($130,000-$180,000/year) just to manage the program. With automation, existing team members can handle compliance as part of their role, deferring or eliminating the need for a dedicated hire. 5. Faster time-to-compliance. Manual compliance programs typically take 6-12 months to achieve initial certification. With automation, the timeline drops to 8-12 weeks. The revenue impact of closing that gap is significant: * - Enterprise deals that were blocked by missing certifications can close 3-6 months sooner * - Faster market expansion into regulated industries (healthcare, financial services, government) * - Reduced customer churn risk from compliance gaps or slow questionnaire responses Sample ROI calculation: 50-person SaaS company. Let's walk through a concrete example. Consider a 50-person B2B SaaS company with $8M ARR that needs SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 to close enterprise deals. | Cost Category | Manual (Annual) | With LowerPlane (Annual) | Savings | | External auditor (SOC 2) | $50,000 | $30,000 | $20,000 | | External auditor (ISO 27001) | $40,000 | $25,000 | $15,000 | | Compliance consultant | $40,000 | $0 | $40,000 | | Policy drafting (legal fees) | $25,000 | $5,000 | $20,000 | | Engineering time (evidence + remediation) | $45,000 | $10,000 | $35,000 | | GRC team time | $55,000 | $18,000 | $37,000 | | LowerPlane platform | $0 | $18,000 | -$18,000 | | Total Annual Cost | $255,000 | $106,000 | $149,000 | Annual Savings 58% cost reduction ROI on Platform Spend $149K savings / $18K platform cost Payback Period Time to recoup annual platform cost This calculation doesn't even include the revenue impact. If your SOC 2 report helps close two additional enterprise deals worth $100K each, the total ROI exceeds $349,000 - a 19x return on the $18K platform investment. Get multi-framework compliance at 60% less. LowerPlane automates compliance across SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, and PCI-DSS - with 375+ integrations, automated evidence collection, and policy generation. All at 60% less than Vanta or Drata. Presenting the ROI Case to Your CFO. CFOs care about three things: cost reduction, risk mitigation, and revenue enablement. Here's how to frame your compliance automation proposal in language that resonates with finance leadership: Frame 1: cost reduction. "We're currently spending $255K per year on compliance across two frameworks. By investing $18K in an automation platform, we can reduce that to $106K - a 58% savings that frees up $149K in budget and 600+ hours of engineering and security team time." Key metric: Cost per framework drops from $127,500 to $53,000. Frame 2: risk mitigation. "Without compliance certifications, we face $150K+ in expected regulatory exposure, 28-40% higher cyber insurance premiums, and denial of coverage in the event of a breach. Automation doesn't just save money - it protects us from seven-figure downside scenarios." Key metric: Insurance premium savings of $30K-$75K/year alone can justify the platform cost. Frame 3: revenue enablement. "Our sales team reports that 23% of enterprise opportunities stall or die due to missing compliance certifications. With $3M in enterprise pipeline, that's $690K at risk. Automation gets us certified 3-6 months faster, unlocking this revenue immediately." Key metric: $690K in at-risk pipeline recovered, with additional upside from faster market expansion. The one-slide summary. When presenting to leadership, distill the ROI into a single slide with four numbers: Annual cost savings Return on investment Revenue at risk Payback period Key takeaways. * 1Manual compliance costs $120,000-$260,000 per framework per year when you include both direct costs and internal staff time. * 2Automation reduces costs by 58%+ through automated evidence collection, policy generation, and multi-framework control mapping. * 3The ROI case has three pillars: cost reduction ($149K/year), risk mitigation (insurance + regulatory), and revenue enablement ($690K in unblocked pipeline). * 4Multi-framework automation delivers outsized returns because 80-90% of controls overlap - your second framework costs a fraction of the first. * 5LowerPlane delivers these savings at 60% less than competitors, making the ROI case even more compelling for budget-conscious teams. Get compliance insights weekly. Join 5,000+ compliance professionals receiving actionable insights on automation strategies, cost optimization, and framework updates. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.