SecPortal vs Drata
compliance automation vs security testing workspace
Drata is a continuous compliance automation platform built around control-evidence collection across SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, CMMC, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, NIST CSF, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 27701, HITRUST, and FedRAMP. The platform connects to cloud accounts, identity providers, HR and onboarding systems, MDM, and code repositories, runs adaptive automation against a control catalogue, ships a Trust Center for prospect-facing security posture, and feeds an auditor-facing workflow inside Audit Hub. The buyer is the GRC or compliance owner whose primary job is to keep certifications in force between observation periods. SecPortal is a different shape: scoped engagements, manual finding entry, AI report generation, branded client portal, native external and authenticated web scanning, code scanning on connected repositories, retesting, findings management with CVSS 3.1, and the exception register all live inside one workspace. This page is the side-by-side for buyers comparing a compliance automation platform that monitors controls across the organisation to a security testing and remediation workspace that scans, records, reports, and delivers findings to clients, business units, or auditors.
No credit card required. Free plan available forever.
| Feature | SecPortal | Drata |
|---|---|---|
| Primary use case | Security testing and remediation workspace with scanning, findings, AI reports, and branded portal on one tenant | Continuous compliance automation platform that pulls control evidence from cloud, identity, HR, MDM, and code integrations against a framework catalogue |
| Built-in external vulnerability scanning (16 modules) | Relies on integrations with external vulnerability scanners for scanning evidence | |
| Authenticated web application scanning (DAST) | ||
| Code scanning (SAST and SCA via Semgrep) on connected repositories | Pulls code-side configuration evidence from GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket integrations; does not run SAST or SCA itself | |
| Subdomain enumeration and external attack surface discovery | ||
| Domain verification before any external scan (DNS TXT or meta tag) | No external scanning surface to gate | |
| Continuous scheduled scanning cadence (daily, weekly, biweekly, monthly) | Adaptive automation runs continuous control checks against integration-sourced evidence rather than active scanning | |
| Engagement model with scope, ROE, and deliverables | ||
| Manual finding entry with full editor (for pentest and review findings) | Manual evidence upload against controls; not a finding editor for technical pentest findings | |
| Findings management with CVSS 3.1 auto-scoring | Risk register and control coverage rather than CVSS-scored vulnerability findings | |
| 300+ finding templates with remediation guidance | Pre-built control catalogue across frameworks rather than vulnerability finding templates | |
| Scanner result import (Nessus, Burp Suite, CSV) | Scanner integrations feed control evidence; not a generic finding-import surface | |
| Encrypted credential vault for authenticated scans (AES-256-GCM) | Stores integration tokens for evidence collection; not a credential vault for active scanning | |
| Retest workflow paired to original finding | Control re-checks on a continuous cadence rather than a paired-retest workflow on a finding | |
| Exception register with eight-field decision chain | Risk register entries with treatment plans and risk acceptance against controls | |
| Compliance framework templates and control mapping | 21 frameworks including OWASP, OWASP ASVS, OWASP MASVS, OWASP API Security Top 10, ISO 27001, SOC 2, PCI DSS, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, FedRAMP, MITRE ATT&CK, DORA, NIS2, CIS Controls, and Essential Eight | SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 27701, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, CMMC, NIST CSF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, HITRUST, and FedRAMP control catalogues with adaptive automation against evidence sources |
| AI-powered report generation (executive, technical, remediation) | Audit-ready evidence packs and observation reports rather than narrative pentest deliverables | |
| Branded white-label client portal on your subdomain | Trust Center page showcasing security posture under the Drata-hosted domain | |
| Vendor security questionnaire automation | Vendor security questionnaire response workflow on the engagement record | Questionnaire automation answers vendor questionnaires from the control library |
| Trust Center for prospect-facing security posture | ||
| Continuous control monitoring across cloud, identity, HR, MDM, and code integrations | ||
| Employee security training tracking and policy acknowledgement | ||
| Background check and HR onboarding evidence | ||
| Third-party risk and vendor risk management module | ||
| Auditor portal for SOC 2 and ISO 27001 examination support | Activity log with CSV export and per-engagement evidence pack | Audit Hub with auditor seat and observation period workflow |
| Integrated invoicing and Stripe Connect payments for engagements | ||
| Activity audit trail with CSV export | Platform audit logs available | |
| MFA enforcement on every workspace | SSO/SAML on higher tiers; MFA configuration per tenant | |
| Free plan available | ||
| Pricing model | Free, Pro, Team | Sales-led annual contract licensing scaled by employee count, framework count, and add-on modules |
| Setup time | 2 minutes | Integration connection across cloud, identity, HR, MDM, and code surfaces plus control mapping calibration |
| Best fit for | AppSec teams, internal security teams, vulnerability management teams, product security teams, pentest firms, MSSPs, and consultancies that scan, record, report, and deliver findings from one workspace | GRC and compliance owners who need adaptive control-evidence automation, a Trust Center, vendor and third-party risk management, and Audit Hub support across SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, and similar frameworks |
SecPortal vs Drata: compliance automation vs security testing workspace
Drata is a continuous compliance automation platform built to collect, monitor, and renew the evidence behind SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 27701, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, CMMC, NIST CSF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, HITRUST, and FedRAMP across an organisation. The platform connects to cloud accounts (AWS, GCP, Azure), identity providers (Okta, Google Workspace, Microsoft Entra), HR and onboarding systems, MDM, and code surfaces (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket), runs Adaptive Automation against the control catalogue, surfaces a Trust Center page for prospect-facing security posture, and feeds Audit Hub during the auditor observation period. The buyer assumption is that the framework catalogue is the asset of record and the GRC owner needs continuous evidence collection across organisational systems rather than once-a-cycle manual capture.
SecPortal is a different category. SecPortal is a security testing and remediation workspace that carries scoped engagements, manual and scanner-driven findings, AI-generated reports, a branded client portal, the exception register, and an audit trail all on one tenant. The buyer is an AppSec team, an internal security team, a vulnerability management team, a product security team, a penetration testing firm, an MSSP, or a security consultancy whose work covers scanning, finding, reporting, and delivering to clients, business units, or auditors. If you are comparing a compliance automation platform that monitors controls across the organisation to a security testing workspace that scans, records, reports, and ships findings, this page is the side-by-side. The adjacent comparisons buyers in the GRC and compliance category often evaluate alongside are SecPortal vs Vanta, SecPortal vs ServiceNow Vulnerability Response, SecPortal vs Jira, and SecPortal vs spreadsheets.
Where Drata stops for security testing, finding, and delivery work
These are not Drata-specific criticisms; they are properties of a compliance automation platform when you compare it to running scoped engagements, manual reviews, external and authenticated web scanning, code scanning, AI report writing, and branded delivery on a single workspace.
Built as a compliance automation platform, not a security testing workspace
Drata is a continuous compliance automation platform built around control evidence collection. The product connects to cloud accounts (AWS, GCP, Azure), identity providers (Okta, Google Workspace, Microsoft Entra), HR and onboarding systems, MDM, and code surfaces (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket), then runs adaptive automation against a control catalogue (SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 27701, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, CMMC, NIST CSF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, HITRUST, FedRAMP). The buyer is the GRC or compliance owner who needs the audit-ready evidence trail to hold currency between certification cycles. SecPortal is a different shape: scoped engagements, manual finding entry, AI report generation, branded client portal, native external and authenticated web scanning, and SAST plus SCA on connected repositories all live inside one workspace.
No active vulnerability scanning surface
Drata does not run its own external attack surface scan, authenticated DAST against a logged-in application, or SAST and SCA on connected repositories. The platform reads control evidence from external scanner integrations and code-repository metadata rather than running scans itself. If the security team needs to scan a perimeter, run a logged-in DAST pass, or run SAST plus SCA against a repository as part of the security testing programme, that work happens in a separate platform that feeds Drata evidence afterwards. SecPortal runs 16 external scanner modules across DNS, TLS, ports, headers, technology, subdomain enumeration, path probing, and CVE matching on any verified domain, 17 authenticated web scanner modules against any logged-in target, and Semgrep-powered SAST plus dependency analysis on repositories connected by GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket OAuth.
No engagement, scope, or scoped deliverable model
Drata is organised around the framework, the control, the policy, and the continuous evidence pull. There is no scoped engagement record with a kickoff, a defined target list, rules of engagement, a final report, and a closure date. If the work being shipped is a penetration test, a vulnerability assessment, an external attack surface programme, an AppSec code review, a third-party security review, or a client-billable security assessment with a contract scope and a deliverable, Drata does not carry that record. SecPortal does, on the same workspace as the scanner stack, the AI report generator, and the branded client portal.
No branded client portal for findings delivery
Drata serves a Trust Center page that showcases compliance posture to prospects and customers under a Drata-hosted domain. The Trust Center is a sales artefact, not a delivery surface for technical pentest findings, retest cycles, remediation conversations, and report downloads on a tenant subdomain under the security team or consultancy brand. SecPortal serves a branded client portal on a tenant subdomain so every finding, retest, remediation thread, and report download lives under your name rather than under a vendor name.
No native pentest, manual finding, or narrative report workflow
Drata produces audit-ready evidence packs, control coverage views, observation reports, and an Audit Hub auditor-facing workflow. It does not draft narrative pentest reports, accept manual finding entry from a tester or reviewer with full evidence and CVSS vector parsing, or generate executive summaries and remediation roadmaps that go to a board, a client, or an application owner. SecPortal supports manual finding entry with a full editor, drafts executive, technical, and remediation deliverables from the live findings record with Claude, and pairs every retest to the original finding so the closure record holds up under audit.
Sales-led pricing scaled to compliance scope
Drata pricing is sales-led and scaled by employee count, framework count, and the add-on module footprint (Risk Management, Third-Party Risk Management, Trust Center customisation, Questionnaire Automation, Adaptive Automation tiers), with annual contract floors that fit enterprise procurement rather than self-service onboarding. SecPortal pricing is published on the website with a free plan, monthly Pro and Team tiers, and no annual contract floor for the Pro and Team tiers.
How a compliance platform and a security testing workspace see the same problem differently
Compliance automation is a useful category framing for control evidence. The buyer should be clear-eyed about what a continuous compliance platform gives you and where the engagement, scan, manual finding, and delivery workflow has to go instead. The contrast below is between a compliance automation platform that derives value from reading control evidence across organisational systems and a security testing workspace that holds the engagement record on the tenant where the operators work.
Compliance automation reads control evidence across organisational systems
Drata, Vanta, Secureframe, Thoropass, Sprinto, and similar continuous compliance platforms start from the assumption that the framework catalogue is the asset of record. The economic value comes from automating the evidence-collection work that GRC owners used to do by hand: pulling configuration from cloud accounts, identity providers, HR systems, MDM, and code surfaces, running continuous checks against the control catalogue, and feeding the resulting evidence into the audit workflow through tools like Audit Hub. The product is the compliance evidence layer that sits on top of the rest of the security stack.
A security testing and remediation workspace owns the finding from scan to closure
SecPortal does not assume that a compliance automation platform is the right shape for every kind of security work. The workspace runs scoped engagements, supports manual finding entry from a tester or reviewer, runs its own external and authenticated web scanning plus code scanning on connected repositories, calibrates severity through CVSS 3.1 with environmental adjustment, captures the exception register on the same record as the finding, ships AI-generated executive, technical, and remediation deliverables, and serves the report and the live findings through a branded client portal on a tenant subdomain. The same record holds for a scoped pentest, a continuous vulnerability assessment, an AppSec code review, a third-party security review, and an external attack surface programme.
Most enterprises run both, with each platform doing what it was built for
The honest framing is that a compliance automation platform and a security testing workspace solve adjacent problems. Drata carries the framework-evidence layer between audits. SecPortal carries the engagement, scan, finding, exception, retest, and report record that produces the technical security evidence Drata surfaces to auditors. The two coexist: GRC operates on the framework catalogue inside Drata, the security testing team operates on the engagement record inside SecPortal, and the same activity log walks back from the audit observation period to the underlying technical work.
Who each platform is the right fit for
Drata and SecPortal solve adjacent problems for different buyers. The honest answer is that the right tool depends on whether the work is continuous control-evidence automation across organisational systems or scoped engagements, manual review, scanning, AI reporting, and branded delivery on one workspace. Many enterprises run both, with Drata carrying the framework-evidence layer and SecPortal carrying the engagement, finding, and delivery record beside it.
Drata fits GRC and compliance owners running SOC 2, ISO 27001, and similar framework programmes
If you are a GRC or compliance owner whose primary job is to keep SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, NIST CSF, CMMC, HITRUST, or similar framework certifications in force, the asset of record is the control catalogue, the bottleneck is continuous evidence collection across cloud, identity, HR, and code surfaces, and the team needs a platform that automates that evidence pull, surfaces a Trust Center to prospects, and feeds Audit Hub during the observation period, Drata was built for that compliance-evidence shape. The buyer assumption is one compliance automation platform that sits across the organisation and feeds the audit observation period without manual evidence capture every cycle.
SecPortal fits security teams that scan, find, report, and deliver
If you are an AppSec team, an internal security team, a product security team, a vulnerability management team, a penetration testing firm, an MSSP, or a security consultancy whose work covers scoped engagements, manual finding entry, external perimeter scanning, authenticated web testing, code scanning, AI-generated reporting, and branded delivery, SecPortal carries that lifecycle on one tenant. Findings, scans, retests, exception decisions, evidence, and the audit trail all live on the engagement record rather than scattered across a compliance automation console, a separate scanner stack, a separate report generator, and a separate portal.
Many security programmes run both side by side
A growing enterprise can keep Drata for the SOC 2 and ISO 27001 evidence automation that runs across cloud, identity, HR, MDM, and code surfaces and use SecPortal for the engagement record that holds scoped pentests, vulnerability assessments, AppSec code reviews, external attack surface programmes, and the findings the technical team produces. The Drata Trust Center showcases the compliance posture; the SecPortal client portal serves the technical findings, retest cycles, and report downloads under the security team brand.
Where the evidence comes from in each platform
Drata and SecPortal both produce evidence an auditor or a buyer reads, but the evidence source is different. Drata reads integrations. SecPortal runs scans, accepts manual finding entry, and holds the engagement record from kickoff to closure. The contrast matters when the auditor or the business unit asks for the technical security testing evidence behind a control, not just the configuration state of an organisational system.
Drata supplies control-level evidence from organisational integrations
The Drata value proposition is that compliance evidence collection becomes a background process rather than a once-a-year scramble. The platform connects to cloud accounts, identity providers, HR systems, MDM, and code repositories, runs adaptive automation against the control catalogue, and renders the resulting evidence into an auditor-ready pack inside Audit Hub. The right question is not whether that evidence layer is useful (it is), but whether it covers the technical security testing record that drives findings, retests, and remediation conversations on a scoped engagement.
SecPortal supplies finding-level evidence from the engagement record
The SecPortal value proposition is that the technical security work has a single record that walks from the scoped engagement to the scan, to the finding, to the exception decision, to the retest, to the report, and to the closure event. CVSS 3.1 vectors, severity, evidence, owner, remediation status, retest pairing, and exception rationale all sit on the same record. When an auditor reads the security testing evidence for an observation period, the record reconstructs itself rather than getting reassembled from chat threads and ad hoc PDFs.
Where SecPortal sits next to Drata rather than inside the same category
SecPortal is not a compliance automation platform and does not pretend to replace one. SecPortal sits next to a compliance automation platform as the security testing and delivery workspace where scoped pentest findings, manual reviewer findings, external perimeter scan output, authenticated web DAST output, SAST and SCA output from connected repositories, AI-generated reports, the exception register, and the branded client portal all live on one tenant. If the compliance automation platform is the right answer for the control-evidence layer, the security testing workspace is still the right answer for the engagement, finding, and delivery work that sits beside it.
Adaptive Automation vs continuous scanning: two different cadences
Drata markets Adaptive Automation as the continuous-evidence engine that watches connected systems and re-evaluates control state as configuration drifts. SecPortal has its own continuous cadence, but at a different layer: continuous monitoring on verified targets across daily, weekly, biweekly, or monthly schedules. Both cadences feed the same audit observation period, but they observe different surfaces and produce different evidence.
Drata Adaptive Automation observes integration state on a continuous schedule
Drata Adaptive Automation watches connected systems and re-evaluates control evidence as configuration drifts. The unit of work is the control, the unit of evidence is the integration sample, and the cadence is continuous. The output is a compliance posture view across the organisation, scaled by employee count and framework count, with the Audit Hub view ready for an auditor to walk through during the observation period.
SecPortal continuous monitoring observes target state on engagement-scoped schedules
SecPortal continuous monitoring runs scheduled external, authenticated, or code scans against verified targets at daily, weekly, biweekly, or monthly cadence. The unit of work is the engagement, the unit of evidence is the scan execution reference paired with the resulting finding, and the cadence is engagement-scoped. The output is a security posture view across the engagement portfolio, with the activity log and per-engagement evidence pack ready for an auditor or a business owner to walk through after an observation period.
The two cadences observe different layers of the same posture
Drata Adaptive Automation tells you whether the control state across the organisation matches the framework expectation. SecPortal continuous monitoring tells you whether the technical target state of an asset, an application, or a repository matches the security testing expectation. Both layers feed the audit observation period: Drata gives the auditor the control coverage view; SecPortal gives the auditor the underlying technical evidence the control coverage view points at.
How findings, scans, and reports get into each platform
Drata is downstream of the security testing programme: the platform reads control evidence from cloud, identity, HR, MDM, and code integrations and surfaces the resulting compliance state. The scanning, the manual pentest finding, and the narrative report happen elsewhere. SecPortal runs scanning, finding entry, and reporting inside the same workspace as the engagement.
The external scanning feature runs 16 modules covering SSL, headers, DNS, ports, subdomains, technology fingerprinting, and CVE correlation. The authenticated scanning feature adds DAST behind stored credentials so issues that only surface inside an authenticated session do not slip past anonymous testing. The code scanning feature runs Semgrep-powered SAST and dependency auditing against repositories connected by OAuth from GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket. The findings management feature holds the consolidated record with CVSS 3.1 scoring, evidence, owner, and remediation status. The AI reports feature drafts the executive and technical narratives the client or auditor receives.
Transparent pricing, no procurement cycle
SecPortal pricing is published on the website and self-service from sign-up. There is no annual contract floor on the Pro or Team tiers, no per-employee licensing model, and no sales call required before you can run a real engagement.
SecPortal Free
Free forever
1 user, 3 clients, 2 engagements per client, 3 AI credits, 6 core scan modules.
SecPortal Pro
From $149/month
All scan modules, 100 clients, 25 AI credits/month, branded client portal, invoicing, compliance tracking.
SecPortal Team
From $299/month
Up to 5 users, 75 AI credits/month, team management, activity audit trail with CSV export, MFA enforcement.
Why security teams pick SecPortal alongside or instead of Drata
- Run scoped engagements with a kickoff, deliverables, retests, and a final invoice on one record rather than a continuous control-evidence pull inside a compliance automation console
- Scan the perimeter with 16 external modules, run authenticated DAST with 17 web modules, and run SAST plus SCA on connected repositories from inside the workspace
- Generate executive, technical, and remediation deliverables with Claude from the live findings record
- Enter manual findings from a tester, reviewer, or third-party report into the same record the scanners feed
- Deliver findings through a branded client portal on a tenant subdomain instead of a Trust Center page under a vendor-hosted domain
- Pair every retest to the original finding so the closure record holds up under audit
- Document CVSS, EPSS, KEV, asset tier, exposure, and compensating controls on the engagement record so prioritisation is defensible to a board, an auditor, or an application owner
- Capture the exception register on the same record as the finding with linked finding, severity, compensating controls, residual likelihood, residual impact, business rationale, expiry, and review cadence
- Map findings across 21 framework templates including OWASP, OWASP ASVS, OWASP MASVS, OWASP API Security Top 10, ISO 27001, SOC 2, PCI DSS, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, FedRAMP, MITRE ATT&CK, DORA, NIS2, CIS Controls, and Essential Eight
- Store privileged scan credentials encrypted at rest with AES-256-GCM and rotate them through the in-product credential vault
- Invoice clients or business units directly from the engagement record through Stripe Connect
- Start on the free plan and upgrade without an employee-count audit, a framework-count audit, or a sales call for the higher tier
Related reading
If you are evaluating how to run an in-house security testing programme alongside or instead of a compliance automation platform, the pages below cover the workflows, signals, and adjacent comparisons that come up most often.
- SecPortal for GRC and compliance teams for the audience page that lays out findings management, control mapping, exception register, and audit-ready reporting on one workspace.
- SecPortal for internal security teams for the in-house security team view of running vulnerability assessments, AppSec testing, and compliance audits across business units.
- Compliance audits workflow for the engagement-side workflow that walks controls, evidence, gaps, exceptions, and the auditor-facing pack.
- Control gap remediation workflow for closing audit findings between assessments rather than reopening them at the next observation period.
- Vulnerability acceptance and exception management for the eight-field decision chain SecPortal captures on the same record as the finding the exception covers.
- Audit evidence retention and disposal for the retention discipline that keeps the engagement-side evidence the compliance platform points at intact across cycles.
- SecPortal vs Secureframe for the side-by-side against the compliance automation platform with Comply AI policy drafting, Custom Frameworks, and Questionnaire Automation.
- SecPortal vs Hyperproof for the side-by-side against the compliance operations platform with Hypersyncs, Control Manager, Risk Manager, and Audit Manager for enterprise multi-framework certification programmes.
- SecPortal vs OneTrust for the side-by-side against the enterprise GRC and integrated risk management suite that spans privacy, IT risk, third-party risk, audit, and policy.
- SecPortal vs Thoropass for the side-by-side against the compliance automation platform that bundles in-house audit labour for SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, HITRUST, NIST CSF, CMMC, and SOX programmes.
- Customer security evidence room for the upstream evidence-packaging workflow that pairs with a Trust Center exposure model.
- Control mapping cross-framework crosswalks for the discipline that keeps a finding mapped to the right control across SOC 2, ISO 27001, and the other framework catalogues.
- Compliance tracking feature for the in-product feature that maps findings across 21 framework templates.
- Security compliance automation guide for the long-form view of how compliance automation, security testing, and the engagement record fit together across SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, and NIST.
- SOC 2 compliance guide for startups for the framework-specific deep dive on what SOC 2 actually expects and how the technical security testing record feeds the audit pack.
- ISO 27001 audit checklist for the Annex A control walkthrough and the evidence pack that auditors read against the observation period.
- Audit evidence half-life research for the deeper analysis of why control evidence ages between audit cycles and how to keep currency reproducible.
- SOC 2 framework page for the Trust Services Criteria mapping the audit-side stakeholders read against the programme.
- ISO 27001 framework page for the Annex A control set and the certification cycle SecPortal supports as the technical-evidence layer.
When the work is scanning, finding, reporting, and delivering, not just compliance evidence collection
Run scoped engagements, generate AI reports, and ship findings through a branded portal on one workspace. The compliance automation platform sits alongside, not above. Start free.
No credit card required. Free plan available forever.