Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AuditBoard vs Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center comparison

AuditBoard and Interfacing Technologies Corporation are both solutions in the GRC category. AuditBoard is ranked #7 with an average rating of 8.0, while Interfacing Technologies Corporation is ranked #21 with an average rating of 8.0. AuditBoard holds a 7.0% mindshare in G, compared to Interfacing Technologies Corporation’s 0.2% mindshare. Additionally, 92% of AuditBoard users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 66% of Interfacing Technologies Corporation users who would recommend it.
AuditBoard
Read 12 AuditBoard reviews
  • 1,482 Views
  • 491 Comparison Views
92% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive Summary
We performed a comparison between AuditBoard and Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center 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.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed AuditBoard vs. Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center Report (Updated: June 2025).
Buyer's Guide
AuditBoard vs. Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center
June 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 860,168 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

AuditBoard
Ranking in GRC
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
IT Vendor Risk Management (9th)
Interfacing Technologies En...
Ranking in GRC
21st
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
BI (Business Intelligence) Tools (29th), Business Process Management (BPM) (35th), Quality Management Software (18th), Document Management Software (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the GRC category, the mindshare of AuditBoard is 7.0%, up from 6.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center is 0.2%. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
GRC
 

Featured Reviews

Gopichand Rajbhar - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly, simple to implement, and has lots of features
There are lots of features. We like the reviewer and auditor, where they support you if you want to upload evidence. At the same time the reviewer or auditor can also put their remark. The solution is user-friendly. It's easy to set up. You can easily find out how to proceed for reassessment, how to upload that evidence, and how you can put in a remark. Everything is a single console where you can easily track what you need. It's stable. The product is scalable. They provide a demo to customers to allow them to explore the tools.
Read full review
SantoshKulkarni1 - PeerSpot reviewer
A Robust Solution with Enhanced Automation and Process Improvement Identification Capabilities
I recommend that users invest more time in the initial setup of the process architecture within the tool. It is crucial to spend time designing how the process architecture works as it significantly impacts how the tool behaves. This upfront investment can prevent the need for extensive reworking later on.
Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"For AuditBoard, the simple workflow made it very easy to code with the group."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Considering the solution's return on investment, it has been extremely helpful since we were doing a lot of documentation. Previously, in our company, we were using an Excel sheet which made things quite messy."
"The most valuable feature is the well-documented instruction."
"AuditBoard is very user-friendly compared to other audit management software I have used in the past."
"Its ability to share the data in real-time has helped us well."
More AuditBoard pros
"The most valuable feature is the integrated manner in which all the capabilities of the Enterprise Process Center platform work together and make it easier to complete the documentation of processes."
"One notable software-related benefit from a user perspective is our improved ability to identify opportunities for automation and process enhancement just by gaining a clearer view of the processes. There are two valuable aspects. First, setting up the process architecture is commendable. Second, not having to maintain different versions of processes is a notable benefit. The solution is stable. The support team is responsive."
 

Cons

"AuditBoard has the potential for improvement in a few key areas. Firstly, I have experienced instances where the platform has experienced technical issues and ceased to function effectively. Additionally, the editing tools provided within the platform can be slow and laggy, particularly when trying to access and edit important documents. This can be a hindrance to my workflow and efficiency. To address these issues, they should begin by improving the speed and reliability of the platform, as well as enhancing the search engine to make it easier to find specific controls and documents within the platform."
"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."
"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."
"The initial setup is somewhat difficult because it has multiple pieces that need to be stitched together. You have to integrate it with the business unit you want to test if you want to go down from the corporate level to the operational level."
"They should improve the solution's test sheets feature for ease of use."
"AuditBoard is overly simple in some instances and there needs to be flexibility to make it more robust."
"The layout for the end user could be improved."
"It is not easy to analyze the results of a survey as a whole."
More AuditBoard cons
"As with all such platforms, Enterprise Process Center is a complex tool and there are many capabilities and features that take time to learn."
"However, on the process mining side, there's potential for improvement to gain deeper insights into process functionality. Additionally, there's always room for enhancement in the user interface."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is variable, like with any technology, and is determined by how hard you wish to negotiate. You can get to a price you're willing to pay if you're willing to negotiate aggressively."
"I highly recommend this tool as the price is reasonable. However, consistent pricing is important, and having a loyalty program that rewards long-term customers with lower prices would be a great addition."
"My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to understand what options you believe you are going to want to implement and rollout in the first three to five years, but spend the most time understanding what the set-up costs and pricing will be in the first two or maybe three."
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which GRC solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about AuditBoard?
It consolidates the E2E process in one single solution, and in a very user friendly environment.
See all answers
What needs improvement with AuditBoard?
AuditBoard is overly simple in some instances and there needs to be flexibility to make it more robust. For IBM OpenPages, the reporting can be more robust as the summary report on each of the modu...
See all answers
What is your primary use case for AuditBoard?
I used AuditBoard primarily for risk assessment questionnaires in a very premature risk environment. I also have experience with IBM OpenPages, mostly for operational risk to track issues, to look ...
See all answers
What do you like most about Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center?
One notable software-related benefit from a user perspective is our improved ability to identify opportunities for automation and process enhancement just by gaining a clearer view of the processe...
See all answers
What needs improvement with Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center?
While we have yet to explore the tool's capabilities fully, I can't think of any immediate drawbacks. However, on the process mining side, there's potential for improvement to gain deeper insights ...
See all answers
What is your primary use case for Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center?
We use the solution for finance processes, specifically for accounts payable and accounts receivable.
See all answers
 

Comparisons

Workiva Wdesk vs AuditBoard Logo
Workiva Wdesk vs AuditBoard
Compared 36% of the time
RSA Archer vs AuditBoard Logo
RSA Archer vs AuditBoard
Compared 23% of the time
OneTrust GRC vs AuditBoard Logo
OneTrust GRC vs AuditBoard
Compared 18% of the time
LogicGate vs AuditBoard Logo
LogicGate vs AuditBoard
Compared 9% of the time
ServiceNow Vendor Risk Management vs AuditBoard Logo
ServiceNow Vendor Risk Management vs AuditBoard
Compared 6% of the time
More AuditBoard Competitors
No data available
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
AuditBoard
June 2025
AuditBoard reportDownload AuditBoard product report
Buyer's Guide
BI (Business Intelligence) Tools
June 2025
Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center reportDownload Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center product report
 

Also Known As

No data available
Enterprise Process Center
 

Overview

AuditBoard is the leading cloud-based platform transforming audit, risk, and compliance management. More than 35% of the Fortune 500 leverage AuditBoard to move their businesses forward with greater clarity and agility. AuditBoard is top-rated by customers on G2, Capterra, and Gartner Peer Insights, and was recently ranked for the fourth year in a row as one of the fastest-growing technology companies in North America by Deloitte. To learn more, visit: AuditBoard.com.

AuditBoard

Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center by Interfacing Technologies Corporation integrates AI-powered enterprise software for managing operations, ensuring compliance, and driving improvement in regulated organizations.

Combining QMS, DMS, BPM, and GRC within a single platform, Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center standardizes processes and reduces risk. It provides real-time insights and adapts to changing regulations, designed for industries like aerospace and life sciences. With ISO 27001 certification, GDPR, and CFR Part 11 compliance, it meets strict global security standards. Recognized by Gartner as a leader in DTO solutions, this platform offers precision and transparency through 25 years of expertise.

What features make Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center valuable?
  • Quality Management: Enhances efficiency and compliance in processes.
  • Document Management: Centralizes information and ensures traceability.
  • Business Process Management: Automates workflows for operational excellence.
  • Governance, Risk & Compliance: Provides control and audit readiness.
What should users look for in reviews?
  • Operational Insight: Real-time insights into processes for better decisions.
  • Risk Reduction: Minimizes compliance risks and enhances security.
  • Adaptability: Quickly responds to changes in regulatory landscapes.

In aerospace and life sciences, Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center implementation ensures compliance and operational control. It's crucial for manufacturing and government sectors seeking adaptability and precision due to their complex regulatory requirements.

Interfacing Technologies Corporation
 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Pepsi-Cola Manufacturing International Ltd., Pfizer Deutschland GmbH, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer S.p.A., KPMG, Royal Australian Air, Orange
Buyer's Guide
AuditBoard vs. Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center
June 2025
Free Report: AuditBoard vs. Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center
Find out what your peers are saying about AuditBoard vs. Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our AuditBoard vs. Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center 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.