SecPortal vs Hyperproof
compliance operations vs security testing workspace
Hyperproof is a compliance operations platform built around a unified control catalogue, the Hypersyncs evidence connector library, Control Manager for control work-item lifecycle, Audit Manager for audit project planning, Risk Manager for the enterprise risk register, and Vendor Risk Manager for third-party assessment. The platform is sold to compliance operations leaders, IRM owners, internal audit directors, and CISOs running multi-framework certification programmes across SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 27701, HIPAA, HITRUST, PCI DSS, NIST CSF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, CMMC, FedRAMP, GDPR, CCPA, and Custom Frameworks. 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 scoring, and the exception register all live inside one workspace. This page is the side-by-side for buyers comparing a compliance operations platform that coordinates controls, risk, and audit projects across the certification programme 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 | Hyperproof |
|---|---|---|
| Primary use case | Security testing and remediation workspace with scanning, findings, AI reports, and branded portal on one tenant | Compliance operations platform coordinating the control catalogue, the enterprise risk register, the audit project plan, and the Hypersyncs evidence pipeline across the certification programme |
| Built-in external vulnerability scanning (16 modules) | Reads finding evidence from external vulnerability scanner Hypersyncs (Nessus, Qualys, Rapid7, Tenable, Wiz, similar) against control work items; does not run its own scans | |
| Authenticated web application scanning (DAST) | ||
| Code scanning (SAST and SCA via Semgrep) on connected repositories | Hypersyncs from GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket feed control evidence; 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) | Hypersyncs run continuous control evidence pulls 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 control work items; not a finding editor for technical pentest findings | |
| Findings management with CVSS 3.1 auto-scoring | Risk register entries with custom risk scoring rather than CVSS-scored vulnerability findings | |
| 300+ finding templates with remediation guidance | Pre-built control library across frameworks rather than vulnerability finding templates | |
| Scanner result import (Nessus, Burp Suite, CSV) | Scanner Hypersyncs feed control work items; not a generic finding-import surface for engagement work | |
| Encrypted credential vault for authenticated scans (AES-256-GCM) | Stores Hypersyncs integration credentials for evidence collection; not a credential vault for active scanning | |
| Retest workflow paired to original finding | Control re-checks and audit project re-walkthroughs rather than a paired-retest workflow on a finding | |
| Exception register with eight-field decision chain | Risk register entries with treatment plans, residual ratings, and risk acceptance across the IRM catalogue | |
| 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 | Extensive cross-framework control library spanning SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 27701, HIPAA, HITRUST, PCI DSS, NIST CSF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, CMMC, FedRAMP, GDPR, CCPA, and Custom Frameworks inside Control Manager |
| AI-powered report generation (executive, technical, remediation) | AI assists with policy and control-narrative copy on the framework record; not engagement-shaped narrative pentest deliverables | |
| Branded white-label client portal on your subdomain | Control coverage views and audit project workspaces are served under the Hyperproof-hosted domain | |
| Hypersyncs library of evidence connectors across cloud, identity, HR, code, ticketing, EDR, SIEM, and SaaS | ||
| Control Manager for control work-item lifecycle (owner, status, evidence pack, review cadence, cross-framework mapping) | Compliance tracking maps findings across 21 framework templates with CSV export | |
| Risk Manager for the enterprise risk register (assessment, treatment plan, residual rating, review schedule) | Exception register on the same record as the finding; no enterprise risk register editor | |
| Audit Manager for audit project planning and fieldwork coordination | Activity log with CSV export and per-engagement evidence pack | |
| Vendor Risk Manager for third-party assessment workflow | Vendor security questionnaire response workflow on the engagement record | |
| Custom Frameworks support for proprietary control catalogues | ||
| Continuous control monitoring across cloud, identity, HR, code, EDR, SIEM, and SaaS surfaces | ||
| Policy and control-narrative drafting workflow | AI report generation drafts engagement-shaped deliverables; not a policy library editor | |
| Integrated invoicing and Stripe Connect payments for engagements | ||
| Activity audit trail with CSV export | Platform audit logs and audit project trail | |
| MFA enforcement on every workspace | SSO/SAML on enterprise tiers; MFA configuration per tenant | |
| Free plan available | ||
| Pricing model | Free, Pro, Team | Sales-led annual contract licensing scaled by user count, framework count, Hypersyncs footprint, and module mix |
| Setup time | 2 minutes | Hypersyncs connection across cloud, identity, HR, code, ticketing, EDR, SIEM, and SaaS surfaces plus control mapping, risk register import, and audit project scaffolding |
| 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 | Compliance operations leaders, IRM owners, internal audit directors, and CISOs running multi-framework certification programmes across SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, HITRUST, PCI DSS, NIST CSF, CMMC, FedRAMP, and Custom Frameworks with hundreds of controls |
SecPortal vs Hyperproof: compliance operations vs security testing workspace
Hyperproof is a compliance operations platform built to coordinate the control catalogue, the risk register, the audit project plan, and the cross-framework evidence layer for a mid-market or enterprise certification programme. The platform ships Control Manager for control work-item lifecycle, Risk Manager for the enterprise risk register, Audit Manager for audit project planning and fieldwork coordination, Vendor Risk Manager for third-party assessment, and Hypersyncs as the connector library that pulls evidence from cloud, identity, HR, code, ticketing, EDR, SIEM, security testing, and SaaS surfaces against control work items. The buyer is a compliance operations leader, an IRM owner, an internal audit director, or a CISO whose primary job is to keep SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 27701, HIPAA, HITRUST, PCI DSS, NIST CSF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, CMMC, FedRAMP, GDPR, CCPA, and Custom Frameworks in force across hundreds of controls and dozens of overlapping certifications.
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 operations platform that runs the control catalogue, the risk register, and the audit project plan 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 operations category often evaluate alongside are SecPortal vs Vanta, SecPortal vs Drata, SecPortal vs OneTrust, and SecPortal vs Thoropass.
Where Hyperproof stops for security testing, finding, and delivery work
These are not Hyperproof-specific criticisms; they are properties of a compliance operations 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 operations platform, not a security testing workspace
Hyperproof is a compliance operations platform built around a unified control catalogue, the Hypersyncs evidence connectors (a large library of cloud, identity, HR, code, and SaaS sources), Control Manager for control work-item lifecycle, Audit Manager for audit project planning, and Risk Manager for the enterprise risk register. The platform is sold to compliance operations leaders, IRM owners, internal audit teams, and CISOs who manage multi-framework programmes across SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 27701, HIPAA, HITRUST, PCI DSS, NIST CSF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, CMMC, FedRAMP, GDPR, CCPA, and Custom Frameworks with hundreds of controls and dozens of overlapping certifications. 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.
No active vulnerability scanning surface
Hyperproof 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 Hypersyncs and from manual evidence uploads against control work items 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 Hyperproof 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
Hyperproof is organised around the control, the framework, the audit project, the risk register entry, 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, Hyperproof 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 technical findings delivery
Hyperproof produces audit-ready evidence packs, control coverage views, audit project workspaces, and the auditor-facing examination workflow under a Hyperproof-hosted domain. There is no branded client portal on a tenant subdomain that delivers technical pentest findings, retest cycles, remediation conversations, and AI-generated reports 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
Hyperproof drafts policy and control narrative copy, builds audit project plans, surfaces control coverage to the audit committee, and renders the audit-ready evidence pack the examiner reads. 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 operations scope
Hyperproof pricing is sales-led and scaled by user count, framework count, the Hypersyncs connector footprint, and the module mix across Control Manager, Audit Manager, Risk Manager, and Vendor Risk Manager. Annual contract floors 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 operations platform and a security testing workspace see the same problem differently
Compliance operations is a useful category framing for the control catalogue, the risk register, and the audit project plan. The buyer should be clear-eyed about what a compliance operations platform gives you and where the engagement, scan, manual finding, and delivery workflow has to go instead. The contrast below is between a compliance operations platform that derives value from coordinating the control catalogue across organisational systems and a security testing workspace that holds the engagement record on the tenant where the operators work.
Compliance operations runs the control catalogue, the risk register, and the audit project
Hyperproof, OneTrust, AuditBoard, ServiceNow GRC, MetricStream, LogicGate, Archer, and similar integrated compliance operations platforms start from the assumption that the framework catalogue, the risk register, and the audit project plan are the assets of record. The economic value comes from giving the compliance operations team a single tenant where Hypersyncs (or equivalent connectors) feed control evidence, control owners walk control work items through draft and review and approval, risk register entries route through assessment and treatment and acceptance, and audit projects coordinate fieldwork across the certification programme. The product is the compliance operations 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 operations 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 operations platform and a security testing workspace solve adjacent problems. Hyperproof carries the control catalogue, the risk register, the audit project plan, and the cross-framework evidence layer between certification cycles. SecPortal carries the engagement, scan, finding, exception, retest, and report record that produces the technical security evidence Hyperproof surfaces to auditors against a control. The two coexist: GRC and compliance operations run on the framework catalogue inside Hyperproof, the security testing team runs 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
Hyperproof and SecPortal solve adjacent problems for different buyers. The honest answer is that the right tool depends on whether the work is multi-framework compliance operations across the control catalogue, the risk register, and the audit project plan or scoped engagements, manual review, scanning, AI reporting, and branded delivery on one workspace. Many enterprises run both, with Hyperproof carrying the compliance operations layer and SecPortal carrying the engagement, finding, and delivery record beside it.
Hyperproof fits compliance operations leaders running multi-framework certification programmes
If you are a compliance operations leader, an IRM owner, an internal audit director, or a CISO whose primary job is to keep a multi-framework programme in force (SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 27701, HIPAA, HITRUST, PCI DSS, NIST CSF, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, CMMC, FedRAMP, GDPR, CCPA, and Custom Frameworks), the asset of record is the control catalogue, the bottleneck is coordinating control owners, evidence collection, risk register updates, and audit project planning across the certification cycle, and the team needs a platform that holds Hypersyncs, Control Manager, Risk Manager, Audit Manager, and Vendor Risk Manager on one tenant, Hyperproof was built for that compliance operations shape. The buyer assumption is one compliance operations platform that coordinates the control catalogue, the risk register, and the audit project plan across the certification programme.
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 operations 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 Hyperproof for the control catalogue, the risk register, the audit project plan, the Hypersyncs evidence layer, and the cross-framework certification programme 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. Hyperproof surfaces the compliance posture to the audit committee and to external auditors; the SecPortal client portal serves the technical findings, retest cycles, and report downloads to clients, business units, or internal stakeholders under your subdomain.
Where the evidence comes from in each platform
Hyperproof and SecPortal both produce evidence an auditor or a buyer reads, but the evidence source is different. Hyperproof reads Hypersyncs and manual uploads against control work items. 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 or the work-item status of a control owner.
Hyperproof supplies control-level evidence from Hypersyncs and manual uploads
The Hyperproof value proposition is that compliance operations becomes a coordinated programme rather than a once-a-year scramble. The platform connects Hypersyncs across cloud accounts, identity providers, HR systems, MDM, ticketing, code repositories, security testing tools, and SaaS surfaces, runs continuous evidence pulls against the control catalogue, accepts manual evidence uploads against control work items, and renders the resulting evidence into an audit-ready pack inside Audit Manager. 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 Hyperproof rather than inside the same category
SecPortal is not a compliance operations platform and does not pretend to replace one. SecPortal sits next to a compliance operations 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 Hyperproof is the right answer for the control-evidence, risk-register, and audit-project layer, the security testing workspace is still the right answer for the engagement, finding, and delivery work that sits beside it.
Control work items vs engagement findings: two different operating models
Hyperproof organises work around control work items, risk register entries, and audit project plans. SecPortal organises work around scoped engagements and the findings they produce. Both operating models feed the audit observation period, but they observe different surfaces and produce different evidence shapes.
Hyperproof Control Manager organises work around the control work item
Control Manager treats every control under every framework as a work item with an owner, a status, an evidence pack, a review cadence, and a cross-framework mapping. Risk Manager treats every entry on the risk register as a work item with an assessment, a treatment plan, a residual rating, and a review schedule. Audit Manager treats every audit project as a programme with phased fieldwork, evidence requests, walkthroughs, and an examination report. The unit of work is the control, the risk, or the audit project; the unit of evidence is the Hypersyncs pull or the manual upload against a control; the cadence is the certification cycle.
SecPortal organises work around the engagement and the finding
The unit of work in SecPortal is the engagement, scoped to a client or business unit with a kickoff, a target list, rules of engagement, deliverables, and a closure date. The unit of evidence is the scan execution and the finding it produced (a finding carries CVSS 3.1 vector, severity, asset, evidence, owner, remediation status, retest pairing, and exception rationale on the same record). The cadence is the engagement and any continuous monitoring schedule layered over the engagement (daily, weekly, biweekly, or monthly). Findings map to controls via the compliance tracking layer across 21 framework templates, so the audit-side reader can walk from a control to the finding that produced the underlying technical evidence.
The two operating models observe different layers of the same posture
Hyperproof Control Manager and SecPortal findings management both ladder up to the audit observation period. Hyperproof tells you whether the control state across the organisation matches the framework expectation and routes the control owner to the next evidence task. SecPortal tells you whether the technical state of an asset, an application, or a repository matches the security testing expectation and routes the finding owner to the next remediation, retest, or exception decision. Both layers feed the audit observation period: Hyperproof gives the auditor the control coverage view; SecPortal gives the auditor the underlying technical evidence the control coverage view points at.
Hypersyncs vs native scanning: two evidence pipelines
Hyperproof markets Hypersyncs as the connector library that pulls control evidence from connected enterprise systems on a continuous cadence. SecPortal does not ship a Hypersyncs-style integration library, but does run its own active scanning and accepts bulk finding import from third-party scanner output. The pipelines sit beside each other rather than against each other.
Hypersyncs pull evidence from connected enterprise systems against control work items
Hyperproof Hypersyncs are a large library of connectors that pull evidence from cloud (AWS, GCP, Azure), identity (Okta, Microsoft Entra, Google Workspace, Auth0), HR and IT (Workday, BambooHR, Rippling, ADP, Jamf, Kandji, Intune, JumpCloud), code (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps), ticketing (Jira, ServiceNow, Asana), endpoint and EDR (CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Defender, Carbon Black), SIEM and logging (Splunk, Datadog, Sumo Logic), security testing (Nessus, Qualys, Rapid7, Tenable, Wiz, Snyk, Veracode, Checkmarx), and SaaS surfaces, against control work items inside Control Manager. The result is a continuous compliance evidence trail that feeds Audit Manager during the examination period.
SecPortal runs scans, manual finding entry, and bulk finding import against engagements
SecPortal does not maintain a Hypersyncs-style library of enterprise integrations. The platform runs its own external scanning across 16 modules, authenticated DAST across 17 modules, and code scanning via Semgrep against connected GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket repositories. The bulk finding import surface accepts Nessus, Burp Suite, and generic CSV output so that third-party scanner findings land on the engagement record. The result is a finding-level technical evidence trail that maps to the compliance tracking layer across 21 framework templates and feeds the audit observation period as the underlying record behind a control assertion.
The two evidence pipelines are complementary, not competing
Hypersyncs answer the question of whether the configuration state of an enterprise system matches a control expectation. SecPortal scans and findings answer the question of whether the technical state of an asset, an application, or a repository matches a security testing expectation. The audit-side stakeholder reads both: the Hypersyncs evidence under Control Manager and the technical evidence under findings management. If your evaluation is whether the platform that integrates with hundreds of enterprise systems is the right shape for engagement and finding work, the answer is that the two pipelines sit beside each other rather than replace each other.
Risk Manager vs the exception register: two records, one observation period
Hyperproof Risk Manager runs the enterprise risk register inside the compliance operations tenant. SecPortal does not run an enterprise risk register editor and is not the right shape for that work. The exception register inside SecPortal carries finding-level exception decisions on the same record as the finding the exception covers, with the eight-field decision chain an audit-side reader walks back through.
Hyperproof Risk Manager runs the enterprise risk register inside the compliance operations tenant
Risk Manager carries the enterprise risk register with risk-statement entries, risk-assessment ratings, treatment plans, residual ratings, control mappings, and review schedules. The platform integrates the risk register with Control Manager so a treatment plan can name the control work items that satisfy it and integrates with Audit Manager so the audit project plan reads the risk register as the prioritisation input.
SecPortal carries the exception register on the same record as the finding
SecPortal does not ship an enterprise risk register editor. The exception register sits on the same record as the finding the exception covers, captures linked finding, severity, compensating controls, residual likelihood, residual impact, business rationale, expiry, and review cadence, and walks the eight-field decision chain so the audit-side reader can reconstruct why a finding stayed open. The narrower scope is intentional: SecPortal carries the technical finding lifecycle, not the enterprise risk taxonomy.
Where the two records connect for an audit
An audit-side reader walking the observation period typically wants to know both whether the enterprise risk register is intact and whether the underlying technical findings, exceptions, and retests reconstruct under each control. Hyperproof Risk Manager answers the first half; SecPortal findings management plus the exception register answer the second half. Many enterprises operate both surfaces with the risk register inside Hyperproof and the finding-level exception decisions inside SecPortal, then map between them in the compliance tracking layer.
How findings, scans, and reports get into each platform
Hyperproof is downstream of the security testing programme: the platform reads control evidence from Hypersyncs and from manual uploads against control work items 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-user licensing model scaled to the compliance programme footprint, 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 Hyperproof
- Run scoped engagements with a kickoff, deliverables, retests, and a final invoice on one record rather than a control work-item queue, a risk register entry, and an audit project task list inside a compliance operations 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 Hyperproof-hosted control coverage view
- 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 a sales call, a per-user audit, a framework-count audit, or an annual contract floor for the published tiers
Related reading
If you are evaluating how to run an in-house security testing programme alongside or instead of a compliance operations platform, the pages below cover the workflows, signals, and adjacent comparisons that come up most often.
- SecPortal vs Vanta for the side-by-side against the continuous compliance automation platform with Trust Center, Questionnaire Automation, and observation period support.
- SecPortal vs Drata for the side-by-side against the compliance automation platform with Adaptive Automation, Trust Center, and Audit Hub.
- SecPortal vs Secureframe for the side-by-side against the compliance automation platform with Comply AI policy drafting and Custom Frameworks support.
- 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.
- SecPortal vs Sprinto for the side-by-side against the cloud-native compliance automation platform with Master Compliance Manager, continuous control monitoring, Trust Center, and in-built audit support for growth-stage and mid-market certification programmes.
- 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 CISOs and security leaders for the leadership view that regenerates from the same engagement record GRC operations reads against.
- 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 mapping cross-framework crosswalks for the discipline that keeps a finding mapped to the right control across SOC 2, ISO 27001, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, PCI DSS, HIPAA, and the other framework catalogues.
- 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.
- Audit fieldwork evidence request fulfilment for the engagement-side response to fieldwork evidence requests an auditor running an examination period reads.
- Compliance tracking feature for the in-product feature that maps findings across 21 framework templates.
- Findings management feature for the verified-capability page covering CVSS 3.1 scoring, evidence, owner, remediation status, retest pairing, and exception rationale on one record.
- 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.
- ISO/IEC 27005 framework page for the information-security-specific risk management methodology that satisfies ISO 27001 clause 6.1.2 and 6.1.3.
- Security compliance automation guide for the long-form view of how compliance automation, compliance operations, security testing, and the engagement record fit together across SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, and NIST.
- 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.
When the work is scanning, finding, reporting, and delivering, not multi-framework compliance operations
Run scoped engagements, generate AI reports, and ship findings through a branded portal on one workspace. The compliance operations platform sits alongside, not above. Start free.
No credit card required. Free plan available forever.