Stop managing compliance in spreadsheets. Connect your stack once, map evidence to controls at the requirement level, and prove trust continuously across products and frameworks — from one workspace.
The evidence graph
One passing test can satisfy requirements across many frameworks.
Everything else on the platform is a view onto this chain. Read it top to bottom and you can trace any framework all the way down to the raw artifact that proves it.
A standard you are held to — SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA. It is a set of controls.
An objective inside a framework, e.g. CC6.1. Controls are composed of requirements.
The finest-grain obligation. Mapping here is what lets one test serve many frameworks.
An automated or manual check that produces a pass/fail result against a requirement.
The artifact a test result is backed by, carrying timestamp, source, and a content hash.
Four phases turn a pile of disconnected tools into a continuously proven compliance program.
Link the systems that hold your configuration, access, and activity data — cloud, version control, identity, HR, and endpoints. Read-only by default; credentials are envelope-encrypted.
Tests map to requirements, requirements roll into controls, and controls roll up to every framework you run. Map a thing once; reuse it everywhere it applies.
Tests run on a schedule against live system state, so you see drift the moment a configuration slips — not at audit time when it is expensive to fix.
Export audit-ready evidence with full provenance, and publish a trust center so customers can self-serve answers instead of blocking your deals.
Because mapping happens at the requirement level, a single passing test can satisfy controls across SOC 2, ISO 27001, and HIPAA at once. Adding a new framework reuses what you already prove instead of starting over.
Compliance is not a point-in-time snapshot. Tests run on a cadence and re-read live system state, so a control that was green last week shows red the moment someone disables MFA or opens a bucket.
Every evidence item carries metadata an auditor will ask for: when it was collected, which system it came from, how many items it counted, and a content hash for tamper-evidence. Evidence links to the test result it backs, not a loose control code.
AI drafts the tedious parts — evidence requests, questionnaire answers, remediation steps, risk summaries — grounded in your own graph. Nothing is applied or sent without a person reviewing it first.
Compliance automation, risk, vendor management, access reviews, and a trust center — six pillars connected by one evidence graph instead of a pile of disconnected spreadsheets and screenshots. Set proof up once and every pillar draws on it.
Our AI assists the work humans review and sign off. It proposes; your team approves. No autonomous claims, no black boxes.
Yes. Data is encrypted in transit and at rest. The draft cites your encryption policy and the passing control that proves it — ready for your reviewer to approve.
Every suggestion is reviewed and approved by a person before it leaves your workspace.
From SOC 2 and ISO 27001 to newer regimes like the EU AI Act, DORA, NIS2, ISO 42001, and the NIST AI RMF — a single passing test can satisfy related controls across many frameworks, so adding your next one reuses the work you already did.
14+ frameworks on the roadmap, spanning security, privacy, AI governance, and financial regimes. Map your controls once and apply them across every framework that shares them.
Pull configuration and access data from the cloud, identity, version-control, HR, endpoint, and observability tools you already run — so evidence collects itself instead of landing in your inbox. We show capability categories here; specific connectors are listed as they ship, with a custom API for the rest.
These are not separate products bolted together. Each one is a view onto the same evidence graph, so a control proven once shows up everywhere it matters.
Controls, requirements, tests, and evidence in one workspace, mapped across every framework.
ExploreA living risk register where residual risk recalculates as the linked controls change status.
ExploreTrack third parties, parse their reports, and tie vendor posture back to your controls.
ExploreSchedule review campaigns, pull live membership, and export signed sign-off as evidence.
ExploreDraft answers to DDQs and RFPs from your own evidence — reviewed before they leave.
ExploreA public security profile with NDA-gated documents that shortens customer security reviews.
ExploreIt is the data model the whole platform sits on: Framework → Control → Requirement → Test → Evidence. Frameworks are made of controls, controls of requirements, requirements are verified by tests, and tests are backed by evidence. Because tests attach at the requirement level, one passing test can satisfy requirements shared across many frameworks — which is what makes adding a second or third framework cheap.
A folder of screenshots is point-in-time and disconnected. Here, evidence is produced by tests that re-run on a schedule against live system state, each item carries provenance (timestamp, source system, item count, content hash), and everything is linked back to the controls and frameworks it proves. You get a continuous, queryable, audit-traceable record instead of a static snapshot.
Both. Many controls can be verified automatically by reading a connected system, but some require a human attestation, an uploaded document, or a policy sign-off. Those are first-class manual tests in the same graph, so a control can be satisfied by a mix of automated and manual evidence.
When you activate a framework, the platform maps its requirements against what you already prove. Anything already covered by an existing test is satisfied immediately; the only work left is the genuine gaps. This is the practical payoff of requirement-level mapping and the reason frameworks are a fair pricing axis.
Yes. Tenant isolation is enforced at the data layer, not just in the UI — every query is scoped to your organization, including queries that come through the MCP server or API. A cross-tenant leak in a compliance product is unacceptable, so isolation is a design constraint, not a feature toggle.
Yes. Your controls, mappings, and evidence are exportable. We treat portability as a buying criterion you are right to ask about — there is no value in trapping evidence you generated.
Get a guided demo, or start by scanning any domain for free.