We performed a comparison between AuditBoard and IBM OpenPages based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two GRC solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."In AuditBoard, there are all the audit steps, including documentation, archiving, and tracking the progress of audits."
"The most valuable feature is the well-documented instruction."
"AuditBoard has several solutions for governance, internal audit, and other categories."
"The most significant feature of AuditBoard is its community tools. It provides an internal communication platform that enables users to communicate within the system rather than relying on external tools such as Outlook or Microsoft products. By communicating within the system, all interactions are centralized and accessible, promoting a streamlined workflow."
"I find the most significant elements of this solution are the out-of-the-box reporting, the ease of workflow, workflow management, and the ease of managing our audit process."
"There are lots of features."
"The most valuable feature is that everybody can use the same tool. You can give a person permission to use AuditBoard and define their access to the Audit Table. For example, we can allow external auditors or clients to review our completed tests. The clients are attached to specific tests that happen regularly, like inventory counts and asset counts. Debt compliance is only done once annually."
"AuditBoard is very user-friendly compared to other audit management software I have used in the past."
"The ability to keep a record of internal incidents in the company, and also the monitoring of Key Indicators."
"The content, reporting, and workflow features stand out as the most valuable aspects."
"The product’s interface is very intuitive."
"They should improve the solution's test sheets feature for ease of use."
"Everything is there, and I have no disadvantage to note as of now."
"After sending out a request to my network for documents, it would be great to have a receipt that shows who received the request and who did not."
"Some of that flexibility could be enhanced. When comparing Archer and TeamMate+, there is a little more open-ended in terms of certain of our audit processes and procedures. And there is significantly greater freedom in creating ad hoc audit processes and procedures, whereas AuditBoard is a little more limiting in this regard."
"AuditBoard could benefit from the addition of video capabilities, although it is not a necessity. Small companies that cannot afford licenses for Microsoft Teams or Zoom would benefit greatly from this feature, as it would enhance the communication process."
"It is not easy to analyze the results of a survey as a whole."
"A handful of things in the solution need to be improved. One of them is better communication of updates to the system or tool itself."
"The layout for the end user could be improved."
"The solution must allow customization in reporting."
"I believe there's room for improvement in establishing connections with external information."
"IBM OpenPages needs improvement in its UI. Currently, it is difficult to see the relationships (associations/parents) between all items unless you click on the item itself."
AuditBoard is ranked 2nd in GRC with 11 reviews while IBM OpenPages is ranked 8th in GRC with 5 reviews. AuditBoard is rated 8.6, while IBM OpenPages is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of AuditBoard writes "User-friendly, simple to implement, and has lots of features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM OpenPages writes "Enables us to manage global workflow and users' relationships with the links". AuditBoard is most compared with Workiva Wdesk, OneTrust GRC, RSA Archer and LogicGate, whereas IBM OpenPages is most compared with RSA Archer, MetricStream, SAP BusinessObjects GRC, OneTrust GRC and SAS Enterprise GRC. See our AuditBoard vs. IBM OpenPages report.
See our list of best GRC vendors.
We monitor all GRC reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.