SeQontrol and the Microsoft 365 governance tools

What they are better at

These are mature, focused products with years of work in them, and on the specific job of administering a Microsoft 365 environment they go deeper than we do: workspace lifecycle and provisioning, access reviews as a recurring process, content-level data classification, bulk permission surgery on a large SharePoint environment.

If your problem is "we have one large tenant and need to run permissions as an ongoing administrative discipline", buy one of those. That is what they are for, and the entry price on a per-seat basis is often lower than ours.

What we are better at

Small tenants, and a lot of them. This is the sharpest split. The governance specialists often sell with a seat minimum or an enterprise contract; the average tenant a provider manages is nowhere near that. If your book is sixty clients of twenty-odd users, most of this category cannot sell to you at all, and the ones that can are priced for a single large environment rather than a fleet of small ones. How a book of clients is priced here.

Producing evidence rather than a report. A permission report tells you what is true today. What an auditor, an insurer or a customer questionnaire wants is that a control held over a period, at control granularity, with the exceptions named and time-boxed. Our findings are written to a shared store already tagged to the controls they prove, so a ShareCare scan becomes CompliancePortal evidence with no export and no second integration.

Where this stands today: ShareCare and SecurityPortal findings already carry control tags and history. CompliancePortal, which turns them into framework evidence with attestation, is built but not yet released.

Breadth in one platform. Sharing is one area. The same environment also has Conditional Access coverage, application consents, email authentication and public-facing systems — and those live in four different tools, or in one platform with one console, one findings store, one audit trail and one bill. Each product connects with its own admin consent.

On price

Per seat, on the permissions job alone, the specialists are cheaper. We are not going to pretend the arithmetic says otherwise, and if permissions reporting on one large tenant is the entire requirement, that is our recommendation.

The comparison changes when the requirement is three or four of those areas plus evidence that survives an audit, or when it is a fleet rather than a tenant. Then you are comparing one platform against three products and an integration project, and the per-seat line stops being the number that decides it. The figures are published in full; work it out against your own environment rather than ours.

What we will not claim

We do not do content classification, and we do not read your documents — SeQontrol records that a file is shared with an external address, never what is in it. If your requirement is finding regulated data inside files, that is a data-security product and we are not one.

We do not do workspace provisioning, lifecycle or recurring access-review workflow. Those are administration, we are assurance, and a product that claimed both would be worse at each.