We performed a comparison between AuditBoard and SAP BusinessObjects GRC 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."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 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."
"AuditBoard is very user-friendly compared to other audit management software I have used in the past."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of AuditBoard is its ability to facilitate the editing of work papers in a seamless and efficient manner. This is achieved through a built-in tool that allows for real-time editing without the need for downloading the working paper. This feature has proven to be incredibly time-saving for me as it eliminates the step of having to download the file and make changes, instead providing an easy-to-access "edit work paper" option. Overall, this feature has greatly improved my experience with AuditBoard and has been a significant contributor to its success in my opinion."
"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."
"Initial setup was straightforward. It took maybe one week."
"It is wonderful from the control perspective. The GRC tools help you in knowing what are the risk controls, how to mitigate risks, and how to ensure that there are no conflicts between the roles. From the user perspective, you get to know what are the permission risks and access risks. You get a lot of useful information."
"We have enterprise clients for the product."
"The best features are the scalability and flexibility to implement applications on top of the BW."
"The tool helps create reports for projects, including the creation of any ad-hoc reports"
"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."
"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."
"It is not easy to analyze the results of a survey as a whole."
"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."
"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."
"Everything is there, and I have no disadvantage to note as of now."
"The layout for the end user could be improved."
"They should improve the solution's test sheets feature for ease of use."
"Technical support could be better and faster."
"BusinessObjects is very dated. It is not that user-friendly. It should be made more user-friendly. In addition, if they could make predictive analytics an embedded part of it where people get to know what is there to offer, it would be great."
"We cannot actively log in to the system. It should also improve support."
"I think the old system is better than the new one. From an improvement perspective, the tool needs to ensure that the new technologies it offers are better than the old ones."
"An additional feature I would like to see is the option to add wait time and integrate sources in wait time."
AuditBoard is ranked 2nd in GRC with 11 reviews while SAP BusinessObjects GRC is ranked 14th in GRC with 5 reviews. AuditBoard is rated 8.6, while SAP BusinessObjects GRC is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AuditBoard writes "User-friendly, simple to implement, and has lots of features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP BusinessObjects GRC writes "Provides a lot of useful information and helps in managing risks and controls". AuditBoard is most compared with Workiva Wdesk, OneTrust GRC, RSA Archer, IBM OpenPages and LogicGate, whereas SAP BusinessObjects GRC is most compared with Greenlight Continuous Monitoring, RSA Archer, IBM OpenPages, Security Weaver and Oracle GRC Controls. See our AuditBoard vs. SAP BusinessObjects GRC 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.
