Drata helped us manage our SOC 2 compliance by automating the monitoring of our infrastructure, but overall, the platform didn't work effectively at all. Being fairly new SOC 2 compliance, understanding how the platform worked was really difficult to use. In particular, their UI shows many false positives, indicating that requirements are taken care of even when they're not. This makes it really difficult to manage and understand where we were in the process without being a compliance expert myself. A specific example of when the UI gave us a false positive is that there were several controls within the Drata platform that were completely monitored, such as ensuring that our databases are encrypted at rest. However, there are other controls that are a combination of monitored controls and manual evidence required, and they don't show that secondary requirement at all, even though it's what an actual auditor would require. Using Drata to understand the full scope of what we needed to accomplish and what we needed to provide evidence on was unsuccessful. I went back and forth between the auditor a dozen times and talked to the Drata team multiple times about trying to sort that out to ensure I actually had a punch list of things to do so that they understood the scope of what we needed, but couldn't get there. We eventually tried to cancel the subscription, but they refused, despite the platform not providing the value they promised. We attempted to get their Slack integration working so that we would be notified in real-time of any monitoring issues that were out of compliance, but ultimately, we couldn't get that to work. Drata has impacted our organization negatively, as it made the whole compliance process more complicated and cost me significant time. The complications with Drata extended the entire process by about six months and cost me probably 10 hours a week while we were still trying to get Drata to work, totaling about 40 hours of my time. I think Drata could be improved by changing it so that it reports the actual status of the controls and are more proactive about helping organizations at our stage of business get to compliance.
The existing features of Drata are already extensive and costly to integrate. It requires a certain level of development understanding from companies. Improvements could be in the area of reducing costs and making integrations more accessible.
There is room for improvement in Drata. The core features are solid, but some new features are in a very MVP (Minimum Viable Product) stage. They work, but the user experience isn't always smooth. While the core features are well-developed compared to the market, the new features need more polish. They could benefit from more user feedback and iterations to make them more useful. Some of these new features look promising buthave flaws, so we can’t fully adopt them or justify paying extra for them now. The user interface is clean and intuitive. However, you'll need some specific knowledge if you're a security policy manager or need to set updifferent integrations.
One of the challenges with Drata is that if you're paying for a subscription to ISO 27001, you must undergo a risk assessment. You should have access to all necessary modules on the platform to achieve your compliance posture and certification. It provides real-time reporting regarding SOC 2 or ISO compliance. The auditors issue the reports. Therefore, if the auditors make a recommendation, such as configuring our alert system internally based on their advice, we implement it. Drata must also address its bugs to improve things for the auditors.
Drata is a powerful tool for automating compliance processes, effectively reducing audit preparation time and continuously monitoring security controls. It is highly valued for its ability to integrate seamlessly with existing tech stacks and manage security for remote teams, ensuring adherence to standards like SOC 2 and HIPAA. Drata enhances organizational efficiency, improves workflows, and supports real-time compliance monitoring, making compliance management less stressful and more...
Drata helped us manage our SOC 2 compliance by automating the monitoring of our infrastructure, but overall, the platform didn't work effectively at all. Being fairly new SOC 2 compliance, understanding how the platform worked was really difficult to use. In particular, their UI shows many false positives, indicating that requirements are taken care of even when they're not. This makes it really difficult to manage and understand where we were in the process without being a compliance expert myself. A specific example of when the UI gave us a false positive is that there were several controls within the Drata platform that were completely monitored, such as ensuring that our databases are encrypted at rest. However, there are other controls that are a combination of monitored controls and manual evidence required, and they don't show that secondary requirement at all, even though it's what an actual auditor would require. Using Drata to understand the full scope of what we needed to accomplish and what we needed to provide evidence on was unsuccessful. I went back and forth between the auditor a dozen times and talked to the Drata team multiple times about trying to sort that out to ensure I actually had a punch list of things to do so that they understood the scope of what we needed, but couldn't get there. We eventually tried to cancel the subscription, but they refused, despite the platform not providing the value they promised. We attempted to get their Slack integration working so that we would be notified in real-time of any monitoring issues that were out of compliance, but ultimately, we couldn't get that to work. Drata has impacted our organization negatively, as it made the whole compliance process more complicated and cost me significant time. The complications with Drata extended the entire process by about six months and cost me probably 10 hours a week while we were still trying to get Drata to work, totaling about 40 hours of my time. I think Drata could be improved by changing it so that it reports the actual status of the controls and are more proactive about helping organizations at our stage of business get to compliance.
The existing features of Drata are already extensive and costly to integrate. It requires a certain level of development understanding from companies. Improvements could be in the area of reducing costs and making integrations more accessible.
There is room for improvement in Drata. The core features are solid, but some new features are in a very MVP (Minimum Viable Product) stage. They work, but the user experience isn't always smooth. While the core features are well-developed compared to the market, the new features need more polish. They could benefit from more user feedback and iterations to make them more useful. Some of these new features look promising buthave flaws, so we can’t fully adopt them or justify paying extra for them now. The user interface is clean and intuitive. However, you'll need some specific knowledge if you're a security policy manager or need to set updifferent integrations.
In terms of improvements, I'd suggest better marketing since the industry tends to market these tools as security experts, which isn't true.
One of the challenges with Drata is that if you're paying for a subscription to ISO 27001, you must undergo a risk assessment. You should have access to all necessary modules on the platform to achieve your compliance posture and certification. It provides real-time reporting regarding SOC 2 or ISO compliance. The auditors issue the reports. Therefore, if the auditors make a recommendation, such as configuring our alert system internally based on their advice, we implement it. Drata must also address its bugs to improve things for the auditors.
The solution has a latency of three to five minutes. Also, the solution is quite costly.