SeQontrol and the GRC platforms
Vanta, Drata, Secureframe and their peers do something we deliberately do not. Here is the honest split, including the cases where you should pick them.
What they are better at
Said first, because it is true. Automated GRC platforms have spent years on the parts of compliance that are workflow: policy management, employee onboarding and training records, vendor reviews, questionnaire handling, and — importantly — established relationships with auditors who already know their evidence format.
If your problem is "we need to run a SOC 2 programme and we have no process yet", buy one of those. We are not a substitute for it and pretending otherwise would waste your money.
What we are better at
Proving the technical controls, at control granularity, on a Microsoft 365 estate.
A GRC platform generally establishes that a control exists by asking you, or by a shallow integration check. SeQontrol establishes it by scanning: external sharing containment, Conditional Access coverage, MFA enforcement including the exclusions, application permissions that are actually unused, email authentication posture. The finding and the evidence are the same record, and you can re-run it.
The second difference is fleet economics. If you manage many client tenants, per-tenant GRC licensing prices the work out of existence. This platform was built provider-first.
They are often complementary
The common shape: a GRC platform runs the programme, and SeQontrol feeds it the technical control evidence it cannot produce itself. If that is your situation, say so on the first call and we will scope for it rather than argue for replacement.
What we will not claim
We do not give you an audit opinion, an auditor relationship, or the process half of a compliance programme. The full list of what we do not do is published, and this is on it.