We performed a comparison between Microsoft Secure Score and RSA Archer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about RSA, BitSight, AuditBoard and others in IT Vendor Risk Management."Microsoft Secure Score's most valuable feature is identity."
"The most valuable features of RSA Archer are the asset management, risk management, and vendor management."
"The most valuable feature is the enterprise module, which provides the capability of having all of the information stored and linked with everything else."
"It is a very friendly tool. We can easily understand what is going on inside the tool. I like this tool. We can work with the tool for the ERP platform. We can create automated applications based on the requirements."
"Enables development of any application, automation of any workflow including the GRC work processes."
"The last project was for an investment group that was using Excel. Shifting their records from one position to another took approximately 15 minutes. In Archer, we created a workflow for them to leverage it, and they could send the single record with one click to one person within seconds. The whole process went from 15 minutes to two minutes to get the approval for the records. The main purpose of Archer is to just make it easy."
"The product is very flexible."
"I like how Archer requires very little programming ability. A person with minimum coding experience can configure the necessary fields in Archer. It's more of a drag-and-drop solution."
"It has various valuable features. For example, showing us if a control aligns with specific standards or frameworks helps us understand it better and verify its compliance."
"They could indicate whether a recommendation aligns with different compliance standards."
"There are certain restrictions on API integrations, and it is not simple or straightforward."
"Performance could be improved."
"The user interface needs work. There are many small text boxes, like credit card size's boxes, where we need to input a lot of text. You can't see what you're typing beyond the tiny window, so you have to scroll or type elsewhere and copy-paste it. It's very inconvenient."
"Slow turnaround time from support team."
"Recently, we made a suggestion for cross references, like for one application to another. There were limitations there, so we're hoping that will be included in the next upgrade."
"There is no inbuilt alert in Archer to let us know that a data feed has failed or did not run for different reasons. So, we don't even get to know that a feed has not run until somebody reports it to us. This has been a problem all the time. Data feeds have always been a big headache for us because there is no feature to let us know if a feed has not run or has failed. If Archer had a feature to send us an email notification when a feed has failed, it would've been very helpful. This is the reason why our users are slowly moving away to another platform. Some of the modules that I have been managing are being moved to ServiceNow. Next year, a lot of our modules will be moved from RSA Archer to ServiceNow, and the data feed issue has been one of the main reasons."
"Its customization features could be better."
"The ticket handling process could be improved."
Microsoft Secure Score is ranked 6th in IT Vendor Risk Management with 1 review while RSA Archer is ranked 1st in IT Vendor Risk Management with 38 reviews. Microsoft Secure Score is rated 9.0, while RSA Archer is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Secure Score writes "Stable product with a valuable identity feature ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA Archer writes "A rich application with good workflow, but search feature needs improvement". Microsoft Secure Score is most compared with Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management and Amazon Inspector, whereas RSA Archer is most compared with OneTrust GRC, IBM OpenPages, MetricStream, Workiva Wdesk and AuditBoard.
See our list of best IT Vendor Risk Management vendors.
We monitor all IT Vendor Risk Management 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.