Vanta vs Drata vs a Real Consultancy: What Compliance Automation Tools Actually Do (And What They Don't)

Vanta and Drata have raised 700 million dollars between them on a single positioning claim: that compliance automation software can replace a consultant. As a working ISO 27001 lead auditor, I want to give an honest answer to that claim, because the choice between automation tools and consultancy is the most common decision UK founders get wrong in this category. This guide explains what compliance automation tools actually do, what they do not do, where they excel, and the specific scenarios in which they fail.

Compliance automation platforms do three things, well. First, they monitor your technical environment continuously: cloud infrastructure, identity provider, code repository, ticketing system, HR system. They check whether configured controls such as MFA enforcement, encryption at rest, access reviews, and code review requirements are operating as expected and flag drift. Second, they generate evidence on demand. When an auditor asks for the access review log for Q3, the platform produces it from the integrated systems rather than requiring manual collation. Third, they provide pre-built policy templates and a workflow for tracking control implementation. These are real, valuable capabilities that save meaningful time during both implementation and surveillance phases.

Compliance automation platforms do not write your Statement of Applicability for you in any meaningful way. They generate a template SoA from the framework, but tailoring the SoA to your actual scope, justifying the inclusion or exclusion of each Annex A control against your specific risk profile, and defending those decisions to a UKAS-accredited auditor is consultancy work. They do not conduct your risk assessment; they provide a risk register template. They do not manage your audit relationship: the certification body is contracted separately. They do not write your information security policy in any tailored way. Most importantly, they do not get you certified. The auditor certifies. The platform produces the evidence the auditor reviews. The work between the platform's output and the auditor's signature is the implementation, and that work is consultancy work whether you call it that or not.

Compliance automation platforms are built for technology-native, cloud-native, English-speaking, US-headquartered SaaS companies pursuing SOC 2 Type II. That is the customer profile they were designed around, and they execute it extremely well. If you are a 50-person US SaaS company on AWS, with engineering and security functions sophisticated enough to interpret platform output, willing to allocate 200 to 400 internal hours to the implementation, and pursuing SOC 2 first and ISO 27001 second, the platforms are an excellent choice. If you are not that customer, the platforms are an expensive shortcut that does not actually shorten anything.

Five scenarios where the platform-only approach reliably fails or underperforms. First, hybrid cloud and on-premise environments, because platforms are built around cloud-native integrations and anything running on a hypervisor in a colocation facility is invisible to the platform. Second, ISO 27001 specifically rather than SOC 2, because the Statement of Applicability process, management system clauses, and documentation depth expected by UKAS-accredited auditors are areas where platform output is often inadequate. Third, regulated sectors where fintech, healthtech, legal, and defence require control implementations that go beyond the framework default. Fourth, small teams without a dedicated security function where the platform produces output nobody is qualified to action. Fifth, first-time certifications with tight timelines where the platform is the easy 30 percent of the work and the consultancy work is the difficult 70 percent.

Compliance automation plus consultancy is materially better than compliance automation alone, and materially better than consultancy alone, for businesses in the platform's target profile. It is a complementary stack, not a competing one. Consultancy alone is acceptable for any business with a competent internal IT function that prefers a lower-tooling implementation, and is cost-optimal for businesses below roughly 30 employees. The combination, where it fits, is the highest-quality outcome but also the highest-cost option. Vanta and Drata licences typically run 8,000 to 20,000 pounds per year on top of consultancy fees.

Three questions tell you which option fits. Is your environment cloud-native and platform-integrable? If no, consultancy-led implementation is more reliable. Is your target framework SOC 2 or ISO 27001? Platforms are stronger for SOC 2; ISO 27001 increasingly requires consultancy depth. Do you have an internal owner with security knowledge? If yes, platform plus light consultancy can work. If no, platform output will sit unactioned. Most UK technology businesses fall into the consultancy-led or platform-plus-consultancy categories.