Best for the lowest typical price
Scrut Automation
$7,250 median a year, against Hyperproof's $41,400 median.
- Price per year
- $5,160–$27,050Third-party[4]
- G2 rating
- 4.9 · 1,338 reviewsUser reviews[3]
Compliance platform alternatives
Filter by what you need. The table and the profiles below update together.
| Best for | Reason to compare | Frameworks | Profile | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Growth-stage SaaS teams that expect to add frameworks and want configurable tests | A lower typical price ($25,000 median vs $41,400 median); a published integration count (300+) | $9,415[4] to $68,250 |
4.7 (1,397) | 30+[12] |
300+[16] |
49 directory firms[6] |
Full profile ↓ | |
| Early- to growth-stage SaaS teams seeking guided first-audit preparation | A lower typical price ($15,000 median vs $41,400 median); a published integration count (300+) | $13,167[4] to $16,000 |
4.7 (1,685) | 25+ automated[13] |
300+[13] |
44 directory firms[6] |
Full profile ↓ | |
| Cloud-native SaaS teams on mainstream stacks that want broad, prebuilt coverage | A lower typical price ($20,000 median vs $41,400 median); a published integration count (400+) | $7,500[4] to $57,221 |
4.5 (2,853) | 35+[11] |
400+[11] |
40 directory firms[6] |
Full profile ↓ | |
| Teams preparing a first SOC 2 without an in-house compliance lead | A lower typical price (from $7,500 vs $41,400 median); a published integration count (150+) | $7,500[1] "from" price |
4.7 (779) | 80+[2] |
150+[2] |
0 directory firms[8] |
Full profile ↓ | |
| Teams that want expert guidance on clearly named packages | A lower typical price ($20,000 median vs $41,400 median); a published integration count (300+) | $7,733[4] to $32,575 |
4.7 (835) | 300+[14] |
13 directory firms[6] |
Full profile ↓ | ||
| Teams wanting software and a connected audit process from the same provider | A lower typical price ($26,927 median vs $41,400 median); a published integration count (200+) | $1,145[4] to $52,209 |
4.7 (586) | 18 named[27] |
200+[31] |
Own CPA firm[5] |
Full profile ↓ | |
| Engineering-led teams that value inspectable code or the option to self-host | A published integration count (580+); a trust centre as standard | 4.7 (74)Small sample | 580+[15] |
Full profile ↓ | ||||
| Growth-stage tech teams managing SOC 2 alongside other frameworks | A lower typical price ($7,250 median vs $41,400 median); a trust centre as standard | $5,160[4] to $27,050 |
4.9 (1,338) | 60 listed[25] |
1 directory firm[32] |
Full profile ↓ | ||
∅ No alternative matches every filter. Remove one, or . Products with undisclosed data never match a filter that needs it. | ||||||||
● vendor-reported · ○ third-party · ◐ user reviews · ≈ our estimate · ∅ not disclosed. Numbers in brackets link to sources.
How this list is ordered By how many of the reasons above each product meets, using the criterion stated under each reason, then alphabetically. Numbers are list positions, not scores.
The short answer
This page compares Hyperproof alternatives on cost, integrations and auditor choice. On our figures, Scrut Automation has the lowest typical price ($7,250 median), Comp AI publishes the largest integration catalogue (580+) and Drata is listed by the most audit firms (49). Thoropass runs the audit through its related CPA firm. Comp AI can be self-hosted. Hyperproof still fits established GRC teams running several frameworks and audits at once.
Where Hyperproof stands today
5 common reasons, each tested against the same figures for every alternative. Find yours, then jump to the alternatives that meet it.
Vendr reports observed Hyperproof contracts from $22,215 to $70,000 a year, with a median of $41,400 (Vendr, 44 purchases).
Counts as addressed when: Has a lower typical price: a Vendr median below $41,400, or a published starting price below it where there is no median.
We couldn't find an integration count for Hyperproof. Check the systems you rely on against its catalogue before you renew.
Counts as addressed when: Publishes an integration count.
We couldn't find Hyperproof in SOC2Auditors.org's auditor lists, so we can't say how many audit firms work in it.
Counts as addressed when: Listed by 25 or more firms in SOC2Auditors.org's directory, or the provider runs the audit itself.
Trust centre: partial.
Counts as addressed when: Includes at least one of these as standard: Trust centre.
G2 reviewers put Hyperproof's time to implement at 3 months.
Counts as addressed when: Shorter G2 time to implement than Hyperproof's 3 months.
Switching mid-programme has real costs. Staying is often the right call if any of these apply.
Before renewing, ask one alternative to quote for exactly your current scope (frameworks, employees, modules and audit), and take that quote into your Hyperproof renewal.
Four common situations and the alternative that fits each. These are fit labels, not rankings.
Best for the lowest typical price
$7,250 median a year, against Hyperproof's $41,400 median.
Best for integration breadth
580+ integrations by the vendor's own count, the largest published catalogue here.
Best for choice of auditor
49 firms in SOC2Auditors.org's directory list it, the most of any alternative here.
Best with the audit from the same provider
Runs the audit through its related CPA firm, Thoropass Assurance. Software and audit are priced separately.
Each alternative gets the same profile: who it fits, the data, how it differs from Hyperproof, and what switching involves.
·
Compliance automation platform with custom tests, compliance checks in infrastructure code and a dedicated auditor portal.
Compliance automation platform focused on guided first-audit preparation for SaaS teams.
Compliance automation platform with the largest published integration catalogue and hourly automated tests.
Compliance automation platform sold in packages that pair the software with consultants, aimed at a first SOC 2.
Compliance platform sold as named packages (Fundamentals, Complete, Defense) with expert guidance.
Compliance platform paired with its related CPA firm, Thoropass Assurance, so software and audit come from one provider.
Open-core compliance platform whose evidence-collection code can be inspected or self-hosted, with a managed cloud option.
Compliance and risk platform for growth-stage tech teams running SOC 2 alongside other frameworks.
No profiles match the current filters.
On typical prices (the Vendr median, or the published starting price where there is no median): Scrut Automation $7,250 median, Scytale from $7,500, Sprinto $15,000 median, Vanta $20,000 median, Secureframe $20,000 median, Drata $25,000 median, Thoropass $26,927 median. Comp AI doesn't publish a price. Hyperproof's own typical price is $41,400 median. Medians and starting prices aren't like for like, so compare quotes for the same scope.
Annual platform subscription on one scale, Hyperproof first as the baseline. Ranges are observed contracts (Vendr); a fading bar is a published "from" price; the black tick is a median; hatching means no price is published.
Hyperproof is the shaded baseline column. Tick the alternatives you're weighing, then compare only those.
| Capability | HyperproofBaseline | Drata | Sprinto | Vanta | Scytale | Secureframe | Thoropass | Comp AI | Scrut Automation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included |
| ISO 27001 | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included |
| HIPAA | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included |
| Auditor workspace | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Partial | Included |
| Trust centre | Partial | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included |
| SCIM provisioning | Included | Add-on or higher tier | Not disclosed | Add-on or higher tier | Included | Add-on or higher tier | Included | Not disclosed | Included |
| Audit from the same provider | Not offered | Not offered | Not offered | Add-on or higher tier | Add-on or higher tier | Not offered | Included | Add-on or higher tier | Not offered |
| Self-hosting option | Not disclosed | Not disclosed | Not disclosed | Not disclosed | Not disclosed | Not disclosed | Not disclosed | Included | Not disclosed |
Capability states come from the sources cited in each profile; most are from [5][28][2][20][21][12][22][23][24][26].
These come up in the same searches but solve a different problem. Each is sometimes the better answer.
Publish your security posture and answer questionnaires, but don't monitor controls or collect audit evidence.
Right instead when you already hold a SOC 2 report and buyer security reviews are the bottleneck.
Write policies and run readiness work, usually alongside a platform you still pay for.
Right instead when the problem is time, not software.
Some audit firms include a licence for their own tool with the audit fee.
Right instead when you want one relationship and accept the firm's tool. Check what happens to your data if you change auditor.
Cover risk, policy and audit management across a large organisation, with implementations measured in quarters.
Right instead when you have a dedicated GRC team and many frameworks.
Five steps, in order. Most failed switches skip the first or second.
Download policies, evidence with timestamps, the risk register, vendor reviews and any test history. Some exports are only available while your contract is active.
Switch between observation periods, not during one. If the renewal falls mid-period, ask Hyperproof for a short extension rather than moving tools mid-audit.
Confirm they can audit from the new platform or accept its exports.
Connect the new platform and compare its test results with Hyperproof's for about 30 days before relying on it.
Your auditor may ask for evidence from the old system. Negotiate read-only access, or keep a dated archive of every export.
Answers use the figures on this page. Where a vendor hasn't disclosed something, the answer says so.
On typical prices (the Vendr median, or the published starting price where there is no median): Scrut Automation $7,250 median, Scytale from $7,500, Sprinto $15,000 median, Vanta $20,000 median, Secureframe $20,000 median, Drata $25,000 median, Thoropass $26,927 median. Comp AI doesn't publish a price. Hyperproof's own typical price is $41,400 median. Medians and starting prices aren't like for like, so compare quotes for the same scope.
By vendor claims: Comp AI 580+, Vanta 400+, Drata 300+, Sprinto 300+, Secureframe 300+, Thoropass 200+, Scytale 150+. Scrut Automation doesn't publish a count. Hyperproof publishes no count. Counts are not proof that your own systems produce evidence your auditor accepts, so test the integrations you depend on.
In SOC2Auditors.org's directory: 49 firms list Drata, 44 firms list Sprinto, 40 firms list Vanta, 13 firms list Secureframe, 1 firm lists Scrut Automation, 0 firms list Scytale. Thoropass runs audits through its related CPA firm. Comp AI isn't counted. Hyperproof: not counted.
Thoropass pairs its platform with a related CPA firm, Thoropass Assurance, though software and audit are priced separately. Vanta sells a package that can include an independent auditor's fee. Comp AI says audits can be included in its quote. Scytale sells a third-party audit service from $4,200. The others sell the platform only; you hire an audit firm separately.
Not among full managed platforms. Comp AI publishes an AGPLv3 open-core codebase you can self-host, which removes the licence fee but moves operations onto your team; its managed service is quoted on a call.
On G2: Scrut Automation 4.9 (1,338 reviews), Sprinto 4.7 (1,685 reviews), Drata 4.7 (1,397 reviews), Secureframe 4.7 (835 reviews), Scytale 4.7 (779 reviews), Thoropass 4.7 (586 reviews), Comp AI 4.7 (74 reviews), Vanta 4.5 (2,853 reviews). Hyperproof is rated 4.5 from 223 reviews. Ratings come from self-selected reviewers, and small review counts move more easily.
You can, but it is risky during a Type 2 observation period, because your auditor needs continuous evidence for the whole period. Most teams switch between observation periods, or agree in writing with their auditor how evidence from both tools will be accepted.