Best SOC 2 Compare

Our scoring: how we rate SOC 2 platforms for a switch

Short answer

We score eight SOC 2 platforms on seven criteria from 0 to 10, using only their public pages read 29 September 2026, and combine the scores with published weights. Switching help carries the most weight.

By The Switchyard Desk, Best SOC 2 Compare · Published 2026-10-01 · Vendor pages read 29 September 2026 · Editorial assessment

What do we score, and how much does each criterion count?

Criteria and weights
CriterionWeightWhat it measures
Onboarding and switching help22Who does the work when you start or move platforms: a dedicated expert named by the vendor, a partner network, or a support desk, as each vendor describes it on its own pages.
Framework coverage and cross-mapping16The framework count each vendor publishes and whether controls are mapped once and reused, which decides how much work a second framework adds after a switch.
Published integrations16The integration count each vendor publishes. A vendor that publishes no count scores lower because a switcher cannot check coverage of its own stack before a demo.
Audit path14How you get from readiness to a report: an in-house audit, a built-in partner auditor route, or bring your own auditor.
Pricing transparency12Whether a switcher can see a price, plan names and plan limits before a sales call.
Questionnaires and trust center10A customer-facing trust center and security questionnaire tooling, including published allowances.
AI assistance10Named AI features on the vendor's own pages. Vendor performance claims are reported as claims and never scored.

Weights reflect a team that already runs SOC 2 on one platform and is deciding whether to move: who does the switching work carries the most weight, followed by framework reach and integrations.

Weights sum to 100. A platform's total is sum(score x weight) / 100, shown to two decimals. Equal totals share a rank.

What does a score mean?

  • 9 to 10: the vendor's own pages describe this in specific, checkable terms, and it is the strongest or equal strongest in this lineup.
  • 7 to 8: clearly described with specifics; one or two rivals publish more.
  • 5 to 6: described, but with less detail or a smaller published figure than most rivals.
  • 3 to 4: partly described, or delivered through a model that puts more of the work on the buyer or a third party.
  • 1 to 2: little or nothing published on the pages we read.
  • 0: not used in this edition.

Why does switching help carry the most weight?

A team that already runs SOC 2 has done the first round of work once. What decides the cost of a switch is who moves the policies, evidence and controls, and who talks to the auditor while it happens. We score what each vendor says about that on its own pages: a dedicated expert named as part of the service scores higher than a partner network, and a partner network scores higher than a support desk alone. This is a judgment about the switching use case, not about product quality.

How do the finder and the switch planner change the weights?

The alternatives finder and the alternatives pages multiply the weight of the criterion tied to your reason for leaving by 3. The switch planner also lets you move every weight with a slider, doubles Switching help if you want readiness work done with you, and doubles Audit path if you want the audit arranged through the platform. Score = sum(score x effective weight) / sum(effective weights). The criterion scores themselves never change; only their weights do.

Where do the facts come from?

Each vendor's own public pages: homepage, pricing, plans, frameworks, integrations, services, AI and trust pages, all read on 29 September 2026. Standards facts come from the AICPA and ISO pages listed below. Every score and fact on the site links to its source. Where a vendor does not publish something, we write "Not published" or "Not described on pages reviewed".

What do we not score?

  • Vendor performance claims, such as speed or acceptance-rate figures. We show them labelled as vendor claims.
  • Review-site ratings, badges and awards, including ones vendors display about themselves.
  • Customer counts. We show the figure each vendor states, but a larger customer base is not scored as a better fit.
  • Anything we would have had to guess: unpublished prices, private roadmaps, product behaviour we did not see described.

What are the limitations?

Desk research from public vendor material only. We did not test the products, did not run trials and did not interview vendors or customers. Vendor pages change; a page read on 29 September 2026 may say something different today. "Not described on pages reviewed" means we did not find it on the pages in our source list, not that the product lacks it. Framework and integration counts are as stated by each vendor; we did not count them ourselves.

Corrections

If a vendor's public page has changed, write to desk@bestsoc2compare.com with the URL. We re-read the page, update the fact and its read date, and re-score if needed. We do not accept payment for scores.

Questions people ask

Do you test the platforms?

No. Scores are an editorial assessment from public vendor pages read 29 September 2026. Limitations

How often are scores updated?

When a vendor page in our source list changes and we re-read it. Each fact carries the date we read it. Updates

Why 0 to 10 and not stars?

Each criterion score comes with a sentence explaining it. Stars would suggest a user rating, and we did not collect user ratings. Every score and reason

Related pages