Enterprise Account Executive

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.

From intake request to security approved: how Zip and Drata automate vendor reviews. Drata's Zip integration auto-creates vendor records and kicks off security reviews. No more manual handoffs. Every time your team submits a new vendor intake in Zip, someone on the security team has to be notified, a review has to be kicked off, and the result has to make its way back to procurement before anything gets approved. For fast-growing companies, this manual handoff is one of the most persistent sources of friction between procurement and security - and it often keeps third-party risk reviews stuck in spreadsheets or limited to only "critical" vendors, leaving gaps that raise overall risk. The Drata and Zip integration helps eliminate this. The problem: procurement and compliance don't talk to each other. Most companies manage vendor intake and vendor security in separate systems. Zip handles the procurement side - intake submissions, approval workflows, spend controls. Drata handles the compliance side - vendor security reviews, evidence collection, control monitoring. The gap between them is manual. Someone on the procurement team submits a vendor intake in Zip and emails the security team. The security team creates the vendor record in Drata and kicks off a review. Eventually they email back with an approval. The whole process takes days, sometimes weeks - and requires both teams to stay in sync across systems that don't communicate. For companies targeting SOC 2, ISO 27001, or any framework that requires vendor due diligence, this friction doesn't just slow things down - it creates risk. Vendors can get approved for spend before a security review is complete. The solution: Zip x Drata integration. Drata now integrates directly with Zip. When a team member submits an intake request in Zip for a new vendor, Drata detects it automatically and does three things: * Creates the vendor record in Drata - no manual entry required. * Maps standard fields from Zip intake directly to the Drata vendor record, so all context carries through. * Kicks off a vendor security review according to your configured Drata program settings. When the review is complete and approved in Drata, the status syncs back to Zip automatically. Procurement sees the approval. Vendor onboarding keeps moving. No email chains. No duplicate data entry. No vendor slips through the gap. How it works: step by step. * A team member submits an intake request in Zip and selects a new vendor. * Zip detects that the vendor is new and triggers the Drata integration. * Drata automatically creates the vendor record and starts a security review based on your program configuration. * Relevant documents (SOC 2, ISO certification, bridge letters, pen test reports) are attached automatically based on your configured document type filters. * The security team completes and approves the review in Drata. * Drata syncs the approval back to Zip via webhook - immediately and at scale. * The Zip request is now cleared for approval with a verified security review on record. What's Included in the Integration. * Standard Zip vendor fields can map to Drata vendor records out of the box. Custom fields are on the roadmap for a future phase. * Vendor contact name and email from the Zip vendor contact object are automatically mapped to Drata - no manual configuration needed. * Intake data can be converted to PDF and attached directly to the Drata vendor record. * Document attachments are filtered by type (SOC 2, ISO, bridge letters, pen test) and are configurable per deployment. * Deep links to Drata vendor records are now returned directly in the Zip API response. Setup in Drata. In Drata, go to Settings | Integrations and select Zip. From there: * Generate API credentials with the required scopes. * Paste credentials into Zip - the integration pulls what it needs automatically. * Configure field mappings and set the default Drata User ID as vendor owner. * Select which document types should be attached per deployment. That's the setup. Once live, the integration runs in the background - no ongoing configuration needed. Get started. The Zip x Drata integration is available now. If you use both Zip and Drata, connect the integration in Settings | Integrations in your Drata account. Not yet a Drata customer? See how Drata works and book a demo now. Monica Olmsted is Group Lead of Partner Marketing at Drata, where she leads revenue-generating co-marketing strategies with strategic partners - especially cloud service providers - and helps scale Drata's partner ecosystem. Before Drata, she held partner marketing roles at Seismic and led partner communications and marketing communications at Sesame Software, bringing a strong blend of partnership strategy, multi-channel marketing, and storytelling to every program. She holds a BFA in Visual & Performing Arts from Cornish College of the Arts (cum laude). Partnerships Get biweekly expert insights so you never miss what's next. Chart your course. Navigate to new worlds of trust with Drata.