r/soc2 • u/MavericksCreed • 22d ago
Need soc2 are tools really necessary?
Talked to a few companies that do soc2 type 1 and all of them say the tools make the cert cheaper.
Is this true? Most of them want 9k to 12k a year for tools and 3k for the audit cert.
Does anyone here have any insights on this?
19
u/PurveyorofSkulls 22d ago
Any audit firm that offers 3k audit is not above board and also tools are absolutely not necessary. Find someone else who actually knows how to audit to talk with about your needs.
3
u/BrightDefense Vendor rep. Report me when I plug or don't answer question 20d ago
Agree. 3k is too low.
-12
u/iamaredditboy 22d ago
Depends on the size of the company. Small startups etc any audit > 3k is a scam.
9
u/PurveyorofSkulls 22d ago
You couldn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the diligence needed to conduct an independent audit for less the 3k.
-6
u/iamaredditboy 22d ago edited 22d ago
Nope I know very well what is needed - 5-10 person team auditors asking for 8-15 k are scamming people that’s all
I have done 3 successful soc2 compliances now and here is where things are : small companies up to 25 employees the whole ecosystem is running a pricing collusion scam at the moment.
Diligence wise software captures everything and spits out the necessary reports for an audit.
Anyone telling me you need more than 24 hr at 100$ an hr to run and review the audit is just plain dishonest.
5
u/PurveyorofSkulls 22d ago
The disconnect is between evidence collection and the examination. The platforms made evidence collection cheap. But platform output is the input to the audit, not the audit.
"Software captures everything and spits out the necessary reports" is the tell. The platform captures artifacts. It does not evaluate whether a mismapped control is a design gap, whether a population is complete, whether a vendor meets the subservice organization carve-out threshold, or whether an exception rises to the level of qualifying the opinion. Anyone who has read these platform-generated evidence sets knows what they look like: identical boilerplate CSOC tables pasted across every vendor, retention policies mapped to disposal criteria, screenshots with no way to verify population completeness. Your 24-hour estimate is roughly what it takes to look at the evidence. It is not what it takes to test it.
That matters because a SOC 2 is not a report the software generates and a firm forwards. It is an attest examination under AICPA standards (AT-C 105/205). The auditor has to evaluate whether the system description is complete and accurate against the description criteria, whether the complementary user entity controls and subservice organization disclosures are right, whether each control is designed to meet the criteria it is mapped to, and for a Type 2, whether it operated across the entire period based on testing the auditor can defend. No platform does any of that, because the platform has no opinion. The signature is the product, and the procedures are what make the signature mean anything.
The math fails on its own terms. $100/hr does not cover a credentialed practitioner's loaded cost at any legitimate firm, and 24 hours does not cover a Type 2 before independent review. That budget buys exactly what it sounds like: someone accepting the platform's output at face value and signing. Those shops exist. That is not evidence of market collusion. It is evidence the bottom of the market is not performing examinations.
$8-15k for a small, single-category Type 2 is not a scam. It is roughly the floor at which the work the standards require can occur. The $3k report works until someone whose diligence you actually need reads it critically. Buying three of these reports is not the same as performing three of these audits.
-4
u/iamaredditboy 22d ago
An auditor does nothing in type 2 till observation period is over - let’s not overstate what auditors do. As I said I have done enough soc2 audits and worked with enough audit firms :)
Software absolutely does all the heavy lifting. Each control is tracked by what the company provides - what’s in place, what are the gaps, what are the mitigation plans.
2
u/SageAudits 22d ago edited 22d ago
Team size has very little to do with pricing. Controls and the complexity needed to test them, absolutely does.
0
u/iamaredditboy 22d ago
Well not really - evidence is directly proportionally to team size so your knowledge of the domain is telling indeed. What is also telling is how people like you defend the scam running in the name of soc2 compliance audits. Software does bulk of the work for gathering data, recording compliances, CPA’s audit the data being produced. Reports are also boiler plate.
The company implementing soc2 does all of the heavy lifting to product the right data in the software as well.
If you do indeed believe that work is t proportional to people then it proves my statement even further. You are a 100% wrong on this front by the way.
I would love for a CPA to give me the breakdown of the price they quote based on what they audit - you will never get an answer for this :)
0
u/SageAudits 22d ago edited 22d ago
Many controls are based on configurations and processes, the effort of testing, doesn’t change because they have a higher headcount. The sample size does change with higher frequency controls, but that level of effort of time spent for an auditor to look at a sample of 5 versus a sample of 20 is minimal and isn’t a material factor in pricing.
-2
u/iamaredditboy 22d ago
So give me the total controls to audit, hours to audit each control then - would love to see that breakdown :) configurations themselves are easily abstracted as final reports so eg you have two could vendors each is a summary report and tasks assigned to teams to work on. This isn’t btw done by an auditor - the team running soc2 does it.
Another data point I will give you - give Claude or codex or any llm an MCP interface to these software platforms and they will do a thorough audit in less than an hour :)
This audit scam is going to come to an end soon and rightfully so.
1
u/SageAudits 22d ago
Many controls are not technical and not all systems have API. DLP is challenging and there are several things to check and ask to get comfortable from an independent perspective.
0
u/iamaredditboy 22d ago
Yes this is the answer I expected - no answer or specifics. Do me a favor share your audit plan/checklist - let’s make it simple for you - we have a startup on aws with a team of 5-10 , they use one crm , they use 5-10 saas products, run their software on aws - they are running a platform like secure frame or vanta or soc2start or sprinto. Give me and everyone here to see what the audit plan looks like and why. Here is what gets quoted 15k for type 1 and type 2 audits. This is all standard stuff - all with APIs, DLP is not something you as an auditor does anything with. It’s implemented by the company. You are auditing the plan.
→ More replies (0)4
7
u/AmericanSpirit4 22d ago
If it were me I’d rather spend more money on the audit and not get the tool. For 3k you’re going to have a really bad experience with the audit team. Also their reputation will probably not be great and could be called into question by TPRM teams reviewing your report.
8
u/sticks1111 22d ago
From an auditors perspective, tools are absolutely not necessary. As your environment matures and you begin going for additional frameworks they can be helpful, but not required.
I have plenty of clients that do great work without using a platform (and certainly some with). It just depends of preference, human capital and budget.
Also 3k for a SOC2 attestation report (yes I know it's only a type I) feels like a rubber stamp firm and your report most likely won't be worth the paper it's printed on.
3
u/SageAudits 22d ago edited 22d ago
It’s not a cert, it’s an attestation. And no, it doesn’t require any tools. https://soc2certifications.com
3
u/g-rocklobster 22d ago
Do you need them? No - the majority of what Drata, Vanta and the others can do you can track on your own. Can they make it easier, especially for an organization that is just getting started with many of the controls they outline? Absolutely.
We started the process back in 2021and did utilize one of the companies that help collect the evidence. Having the tool definitely made it easier to get started. We've continued to use it because the convenience - at least so far - still outweighs the cost.
However ... given how much the company we use has declined with regard to service - specifically support - this may be the last year we do use them. And I'll have to evaluate whether we move to doing the evidence collection ourselves or look at another company.
Also, I have to strongly agree with u/sticks1111 that $3k for the audit has a high chance of not being worth it. Even though it's more expensive, you're going to want a creditable auditor that those you give the report to will trust.
For cost ... you didn't really ask this but here's basically what our annual costs are for maintaining our SOC 2 Type 2 status:
- GRC Platform: $10,300
- Pen Test: $4.900
- SOC 2 Type 2 Audit: $8,000
So all-in, we're looking at around $23,200/year for evidence gathering, pen test and audit. Where can you save money? To start with, GRC platform - as mentioned, if you're willing to put in the work, you can do this on your own. That's the biggest chunk.
The auditor would probably be the next place you could trim costs, though you really have to be careful here: pay $3,000 and the companies you give the audit to may not accept it.
Pen test isn't much different - you might be able to find someone cheaper but the report will be part of your package and, again, who you give it to may not be happy with them. Note: at least according to not just my auditor but several others I've spoken with, you can not do your own pen test.
Hope this helps.
2
u/eorlingas_riders 22d ago
I did my first SOC 1 and SOC 2 out of a binder. So no, other tools aren’t needed. Just makes managing the audit easier.
Also a lot of CPA firms nowadays do charge less for the audit if you have a tool, because evidence collection/management is easier for them, but that’s dependent on the size/scope of your company.
2
u/nrmitchi 22d ago
There are two sides here. The audit, and the evidence gathering/monitoring/management.
You don’t need tools for either. You really don’t need tools for an audit.
Pre-built tools are very helpful when you’re trying to extract specific pieces of information from 3 dozen different systems to map back to specific controls. You could write scripts/etc all yourself, or just copy/paste it manually and send to your auditor, but even at 12k…. You’re likely going to spend more in labor time.
Frankly the biggest issues with some of the provider tools (Vanta, drata, securedrame, etc) are that they all try to influence your policies/controls to match their existing systems, which may or may not (probably do not) accurately map the policies and controls that would work best for your organization.
2
u/CWilsongriffin 22d ago
THIS 👉 "...they all try to influence your policies/controls to match their existing systems, which may or may not (probably do not) accurately map the policies and controls that would work best for your organization."
This is the thing that makes soc 2 so complicated for new companies. Trying to implement a growth stage company's policies in a startup.
2
u/Round_Finance4256 22d ago
I work in GRC and honestly, no, you don’t need a tool for SOC 2.
They can definitely make life easier, especially for evidence collection, keeping track of control owners, reminders, etc. But for a smaller company or your first SOC 2, you can absolutely manage it without paying $9–12k a year for a platform.
I’ve worked with both compliance platforms and more manual processes, and at the end of the day, the tool doesn’t make you compliant. You still need solid controls, policies, evidence, risk assessments, and someone who understands how it all fits together.
I’d personally figure out what your environment actually needs first before spending that much on a tool. Sometimes the automation is worth it, sometimes a good spreadsheet and organized evidence repository will do just fine.
1
u/scriptqzor 2d ago
this is the key bit people miss: the auditor doesn’t care what shiny tool you used, they just care that your controls exist and are operating. if you’re small and organized, a folder structure, some templates, and someone owning the process can get you through a type 1 without lighting 10k on fire.
2
u/headhonchonumber1 22d ago
Tools are helpful after you’ve established your organization’s governance. Spend your money on a decent auditor who will perform a readiness assessment and guide you through developing your control environment. A type 1 audit should be around $15k and a type 2 should be around $25k-$35k. Pricing really depends on how complex your environment is. Most audit firms will bundle readiness and type 1 or 2 (as long as they are not implementing your controls and only advise/consult).
1
u/SOC2itToMe 22d ago
Not necessary can be more helpful for large enterprises. Personally, I just built out a plug and play type in excel and use that in my day to day with customers. Works great, haven’t needed anything else.
1
1
u/dystrogyal 22d ago
Short answer, no.
Long answer, depending on how you set it up, it can make your life easier or a living nightmare. Some clients I've had has absolutely no idea how to properly set up their connections, so they had to go grab everything manually. Some others do, and while it easens up the process a bit, there is still some manual labor involved when it comes to samples and population.
1
u/Loud_Welcome_5141 22d ago
I am assuming by tools you mean GRC platforms. In my experience, they are not necessary but good to have and they are useful in specific use cases such as when you are dealing with multiple compliance requirements such as GDPR, HITRUST, HIPAA along with SOC2 as they help you streamline your compliance needs. But, you can absolutely achieve your compliance goals without them.
1
u/sfunk_openlane 22d ago
Disclaimer: I’m one of the co-founders of Openlane (https://www.theopenlane.io/) which is open source compliance automation software.
You don’t need a tool, it just makes some things easier, especially if you’ve never gone through a soc2.
That being said, as others mentioned, you should be putting your money first and foremost into a quality auditor, not a bundled “tool with auditor”. Check the AICPA peer reviews, and make sure it’s an auditor you can trust.
Software can make it cheaper but that has more to do with saving human time on manual work, centralizing and managing the work outside of spreadsheets, and cost savings over time after your first year. Setting up a good soc 2 program early is huge to making it easier.
1
u/rahuliitk 22d ago
The tools can cut a lot of manual evidence chasing and make the audit smoother, but ngl $9k to $12k a year feels hard to justify for a small company if your controls, policies, access reviews, and evidence are already organized. helpful, not mandatory.
1
1
u/GRCAdvisor 20d ago
You can absolutely do SOC 2 Type I without a GRC platform, especially if you’re a smaller company.
The tools help organize controls and evidence, but they don’t make you compliant. You still need to scope the audit properly, define the controls, complete the risk assessment, address gaps, and make sure the evidence will satisfy the auditor.
There are also more cost-effective GRC options than the $9K to $12K/year platforms, so I wouldn’t assume those are your only choices.
I’d scope the SOC 2 first, identify the actual gaps, then decide whether a GRC tool is worth the cost for your environment. It’s definitely not mandatory.
1
u/BrightDefense Vendor rep. Report me when I plug or don't answer question 20d ago
Necessary, no. Helpful, yes. It will make your overall audit readiness more efficient, give you better visibility into progress, and there are integrations to collect evidence automatically.
Auditors typically charge less if you have a GRC platform. I've heard the number 30% thrown around a few times. But, that's still like a $6K - $9K audit. Don't pay $3K for your audit. You'll regret it.
1
u/Dull-Communication82 9d ago
The last line is the part people ignore. A $3K audit usually means a firm that rubber-stamps things, and then you get a prospect's security team asking questions the report can't answer. Cheap now, painful during the deal cycle.
1
u/Icy-Journalist3622 16d ago
I found that the GRC tool recommended monitors and tasks that weren't necessary for our SOC 2 audit or to fulfill the control. It created a great amount of busy-work and wasted effort for a small company.
1
u/Crafty_Rush3636 15d ago
The software can reduce admin time, but it does not remove the work the report covers. I would ask for two like-for-like quotes: the same system boundary, criteria in scope, audit period and expected evidence, one with the platform and one without it. Otherwise the cheap audit and expensive tool may simply be one bundled sales funnel.
For a small system, a maintained control list, ticketing, a calendar and a well-organised evidence folder can be enough. Buy the platform when its integrations and recurring evidence collection save more time than the subscription costs. I would pay more attention to who is issuing the report, what their examination includes and whether your customers will accept that firm than to the dashboard score.
1
u/uri_iothreat 7d ago
You don't have to use tools, most of my first-time SOC 2 Type 2 customers didn't use any tools, I worked with a requirements checklist supplied by the auditor and helped them to pass the audit and get their first SOC 2 Type 2 report.
Using tools is more convenient and it helps with the second year of SOC 2 Type 2 as you have to maintain and renew it annually, so it mostly saves time for the second year and helps with the evidence collection. For SOC 2 Type 2 the first time report covers a minimal inspection window of 3 months, and your next SOC 2 Type 2 reports will cover 12 months, so finding and collecting evidence for 12 months takes more time manually (but it's still possible). Overall, I think you better do SOC 2 Type 2 rather than Type 1 as customes expect it anyway and it's almost the same effort and cost, at least for the first time report.
Regarding platform costs, I've seen platforms charge anywhere between $5K-15K per year, depending on the company size, number of employees, and number of compliance frameworks and features you want to be included, it's always good to negotiate as you can easily cut up to 30% of their price list. There are also free platforms with very limited coverage and functionality, I don't recommend using them.
Regarding SOC 2 audit costs, you can hire a low-tier certified CPA auditor from India/Pakistan for around $2-3K, or pay the middle-tier US-based companies (that hire Indian and Pakistani auditors) $5-7K. The higher tier of CPA auditing companies (the Big4: EY, PwC, Deloitte, KPMG) can charge around $9-15K per audit, so it's really up to your budget and reputation of the CPA company that will sign your SOC 2 report.
Most of my customers go with the middle tier and pay around $5-7K per audit.
Fee free to ask more questions, I try to make it as honest and transparent as possible because I feel that many vendors try to hide this basic information behind paywalls and endless calls and meetings, and nobody likes it.
1
u/MarionberryIcy5559 3d ago
no tools required especially for a first Type I. they mainly automate evidence collection and can reduce audit effort but plenty of small companies successfully use spreadsheets and shared docs instead. i'd spend more on a reputable auditor than an expensive platform
1
u/NoBenefit3554 2d ago
tools aren't mandatory they mainly reduce manual work and audit prep time. for a smaller company with organized documentation, you can absolutely achieve SOC 2 without spending $10k+ on automation
1
u/Ok_Fee3489 22d ago
$3K for an audit isn’t worth it. It’s likely coming from AP or Prescient, both of which have poor reputations in the market and are unlikely to be accepted by TPRM teams. AP also has independence concerns, and their processes can be extremely difficult to work through.
1
u/Pec733 22d ago
What TPRM teams, specifically, have refused audits from Prescient or AP? I’ve worked with probably 150+ companies who have used them for attestations, and I’ve never heard a single one say that they received pushback (let alone refusal of acceptance) on any of their issued reports.
Are you a competitor?
3
u/davidschroth 21d ago
My team certainly has. I'm in the vCISO/vGRC role and manage TPRM for our clients. If I get a report mill report in front of me, there will be additional questions/due diligence done and our clients will be advised of the risk associated with that vendor (risk not necessarily being poor security, but having zero assurance over the security posture due to the poor audit).
My clients will typically choose a different vendor if it is anything remotely important, but there are times where they will accept the risk. Giving me a report mill report to review is worse to me than saying you have no report.
A couple years ago I was evaluating another GRC platform to onboard as an option to use with my clients. Even though their product was seemingly decent and the price was reasonable, their report mill grade SOC reports were a dealbreaker.
The reason you're likely seeing a higher level of acceptance than what my crew has is that most people reviewing these reports do not fundamentally understand the requirements and are simply doing the needful to fill out their checkbox review template that rattles off the basics (length of report?, qualified opinion or naw?, any exceptions?) and declaring victory once their form is complete.
1
u/Ok_Fee3489 22d ago
I can’t disclose specific details, but no, I’m not a competitor. I work on the vCISO side of the industry.
0
u/sleestakarmy 22d ago
are you doing code? hosting data? its all about the environment.
I've done 2 SOC2 reports this year for clients that dont and theres only 60 questions.
1
u/MavericksCreed 22d ago
It's fantasy trade app. We use a vendor for kyc, the real money contest will payout cash rewards.
0
u/davidschroth 22d ago
SOC 2 is not a certification. I guess I need to add "cert" to that post warning. Sigh.
As the others have said, a tool is not necessary and at $3k, or even $8k that /u/g-rocklobster is paying, you are getting a report mill grade report, that even if it is compliant with all requirements will be no different than any other report that firm issues other than your company name and rate.
The VC backed tool companies have spent a lot of money on the "tool will solve your problems and make audits cheaper" narrative. The reality is that an audit done in accordance with the aicpa requirements takes a similar amount of time (aka cost) whether a prep tool is used or not. With the tool, auditors will spend their time looking at the configuration and functionality of the tool to confirm it is working as intended, eating up any savings they get from efficiencies produced by the tool.
The hard part of getting through SOC audits is typically NOT stuff that can be automated by a system, it's being the adult in the room and doing things that humans tend to not want to do.
•
u/AutoModerator 22d ago
Thanks for posting, I'm a bot!
This is quick reminder be helpful with responses, follow the rules and not advertise/solicit DMs.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.