Vanta vs Secureframe vs Laika: Which Compliance Automation Tool is Right for You?

Comparing compliance automation tools like Vanta, Secureframe, and Laika isn’t just a feature checklist exercise; it’s a strategic decision that impacts your audit timelines, engineering bandwidth, and your go-to-market velocity.

These automation compliance tools promise speed, automation, and simplicity — but peel back the layers, and you’ll uncover key differences in framework coverage, audit support, automation depth, and scalability. Whether you seek SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, automation solutions, or comprehensive compliance tools, this comparison will guide your decision.

Below is the definitive analysis between Secureframe, Vanta, and Laika to help you decide which tool aligns with your stage, complexity, and compliance goals.

Vanta vs Secureframe vs Laika: A Quick Overview

Vanta 

Vanta has become a popular choice for early-stage startups and growing companies navigating SOC 2. Its appeal lies in its fast onboarding, clean workflows, and integrations with major cloud providers like AWS, GCP, and Azure. Vanta offers a relatively quick route to compliance for startups seeking compliance tools, particularly for teams with a simple tech stack and few regulatory complexities. The optional vCISO service in higher-tier plans is a useful add-on for companies lacking in-house GRC depth.

However, while evaluating features, Vanta’s reputation for automation tends to oversell the actual experience. Teams often discover that critical components like evidence collection and control monitoring require significant engineering effort post-setup. The tool doesn’t scale smoothly when you introduce layered frameworks like HIPAA or ISO 27001. Custom workflows are limited, and support is patchy depending on geography and plan level. In essence, Vanta helps you get compliant fast, but maintaining and expanding that compliance isn’t always smooth.

Secureframe 

Secureframe operates as the enterprise-grade solution among compliance platforms, with a wide integration ecosystem and support for SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, automation, PCI DSS, and more. Its detailed documentation and robust security posture make it a strong fit for teams with a CISO or dedicated compliance head. The platform’s ability to connect deeply into your infrastructure gives it an edge when managing a complex, multi-region security program across enterprise security requirements.

That said, Secureframe’s strength can also be its weakness. Implementation is rarely plug-and-play; teams report 40–60+ hours of internal time just to get up and running. While the platform introduces you to auditors, it stops short of managing the audit process, putting the onus back on internal teams. If your organization lacks dedicated GRC maturity, you may be wrestling with steep learning curves and underwhelming support. Secureframe works best when you don’t need handholding.

Laika 

Laika comes with a modern, budget-friendly approach, making it attractive to first-time compliance buyers. Its interface is intuitive, and its built-in AI Copilot helps uncomplicate the compliance process by providing context-aware prompts and auto-mapping of evidence. This makes Laika especially appealing for small teams who want guidance without getting buried in technical jargon or consultant fees.

Still, the tool shows its limitations when complexity grows in the compliance tools ecosystem. Automation is shallow, as many tasks still need manual follow-through, and audit support lacks the rigor found in enterprise-grade solutions. Framework support is lighter than Vanta or Secureframe, and scaling to multiple certifications can require starting from scratch. Laika is a smart gateway to SOC 2, but teams quickly outgrow it when they need to standardize compliance across products, geographies, or frameworks.

Vanta vs Secureframe vs Laika: The Ultimate Comparison

Criteria	Vanta	Secureframe	Laika
Pricing	~$10K–$30K+	~$15K–$25K	~$10K–$20K
Framework support	SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI-DSS	SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI-DSS	SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI-DSS
Ideal team size	Early-stage to mid-market	Mid-market to enterprise	SMB-friendly
Automation coverage	60–70%	60–80%	~50–60%
Audit support	Limited auditor support	Extensive network, moderate hand-holding	Brings auditor, but less consultative
Strengths	Speed, VCISO, market presence	Integrations, strong security base	UX, affordability, AI agent
Known gaps	Limited customization, hidden effort	Steeper learning curve, inconsistent support	Automation depth, audit depth

1. Automation depth

Vanta is often top-of-mind when evaluating the best compliance automation tool 2025, but its real-world automation depth can disappoint. While it claims 60–70% automation coverage for SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, automation workflows, many compliance checks still need manual confirmation or engineering effort post-setup. Evidence collection, policy tracking, and access reviews frequently revert to human workflows, especially when edge cases arise.

Secureframe edges ahead with broader automation across multiple frameworks in the compliance tools landscape. It covers up to 80% of controls for some standards but lacks depth in areas like real-time monitoring or exception handling. Much of the automation still relies on flawless integrations, and breakdowns here can create audit friction.

Laika offers a lightweight automation layer focused on checklists and task reminders. It’s useful for first-time compliance efforts but lacks true automation under the hood. Many evidence-related tasks and escalations are still handled manually, reducing operational efficiency in enterprise security implementations.

Verdict: Secureframe leads on raw automation coverage, but reliability and configuration flexibility gaps still exist. Vanta is functional but lacks depth, and Laika trails when it comes to handling anything beyond first-time SOC 2 efforts.

2. Audit support

Vanta introduces its network of auditors but leaves most coordination to internal teams. Unless you’re on an upgraded plan with vCISO services, expect to handle document prep, auditor syncs, and evidence submission yourself.

Secureframe has a broader network of partner auditors and a slightly more structured audit support model for users of compliance tools. That said, it’s still a handoff-style process where auditors are external entities, and day-to-day coordination isn’t tightly integrated into the product.

Laika offers a bundled audit experience that’s more concierge-like on paper but lacks execution depth. Users often find themselves stepping in to manage auditor timelines and clarifications during crunch time, which erodes the benefit of bundling.

Verdict: None of the tools provides truly embedded, end-to-end guidance. Secureframe does the best job of connecting you to auditors, while Laika tries to wrap audit support into its package, but both still place the operational burden back on your internal team. Vanta’s support is the most limited unless you’re on a premium plan.

3. Framework scalability

Vanta handles SOC 2 well but starts to show strain when organizations pursue ISO 27001, HIPAA, or PCI-DSS, especially for those requiring automation across multiple standards. For companies aiming to unify compliance under SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA automation frameworks, control reuse is minimal, and framework expansion often feels like starting from scratch. This makes multi-framework roadmaps inefficient and resource-intensive.

Secureframe has a stronger framework scalability and supports a broader range of standards out of the box among compliance tools. Control mapping is more centralized, and reusing evidence or policies across frameworks is more straightforward — a critical factor for teams preparing for multiple audits annually in enterprise security environments.

Laika offers limited framework support and minimal control reuse across standards. It’s fine for a single-audit cycle, but poor documentation and shallow mapping make it inefficient for companies scaling into new certifications or compliance geographies.

Verdict: Secureframe wins this round with more substantial framework breadth and reuse capabilities. Vanta is solid but rigid, and Laika isn’t built for organizations scaling across multiple certifications.

4. Implementation effort

Vanta requires 20–30 hours of effort from engineering and GRC teams during implementation. While the interface is clean and modern, the setup involves manual mapping, custom integrations, and substantial internal coordination to get fully operational. This makes it less ideal for teams expecting a true plug-and-play experience.

Secureframe demands substantial upfront effort in the implementation process of compliance tools, particularly for heavily regulated industries or complex organizations. Teams often invest 40–60+ hours to configure systems, train internal users, and connect controls. While some guided onboarding and dedicated resources exist, the overall setup is more time-intensive than Vanta or Laika, and the lack of comprehensive guided onboarding can prolong time-to-value for enterprise security setups.

Laika shines in onboarding simplicity for startups or lean teams as it’s relatively quick to set up. However, that simplicity comes at the cost of long-term flexibility—what’s easy now may prove limiting later.

Verdict: Laika wins on short-term ease of setup, making it ideal for first-timers. But Secureframe offers more robust onboarding infrastructure for teams ready to invest upfront. Vanta sits in the middle; neither too heavy nor truly plug-and-play.

5. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

Vanta may start at a mid-range price point, but the need for external tools like MDM platforms, training solutions, or ticketing systems drives up overall cost. Even basic features like policy templates or vendor risk tools often require bolt-ons.

Secureframe is similar in the pricing landscape for compliance tools. While the base pricing is transparent, actual compliance maturity often requires stacking additional software or services. Budget-conscious teams find themselves investing in tools they assumed were included.

Laika looks cost-effective on the surface, especially for smaller companies evaluating enterprise security solutions. However, the lack of integrated functionality leads to team hours being consumed by tasks that could be automated or streamlined, which is a hidden cost that grows with scale.

Verdict: All three tools carry hidden costs in different ways. Laika wins on initial pricing, but Secureframe provides more complete features for the price. Vanta lands somewhere in the middle but can become expensive if you scale frameworks or need real audit support.

Who should choose Vanta, Secureframe, or Laika?

Every compliance automation tool has a sweet spot. The best choice isn’t “the best tool,” it’s the one that aligns with your company’s maturity, goals, and internal muscle.

Choose Laika if you’re a pre-seed or seed-stage startup:

• Ideal for first-time founders tackling compliance with minimal internal resources.
• Provides AI-assisted workflows and an intuitive UX that removes guesswork from SOC 2 basics.
• A budget-friendly entry point for early teams that need to get started without being overwhelmed.
• Great for teams that want to understand compliance while doing it, not just check boxes.

Choose Vanta if you’re a Series A or B startup with external pressure:

• Strong brand reputation makes it a credibility booster for investors or early enterprise sales.
• Fast setup and an optional vCISO help lean teams move quickly without hiring compliance talent.
• A good fit for companies with straightforward SOC 2 needs and limited internal complexity.
• However, it has limited extensibility for multi-framework or nuanced use cases.
  

Choose Secureframe if you have a mature security or GRC function:

• Suits mid-market companies with a CISO or compliance lead in place.
• Offers deep framework support including SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, and more, along with broad integrations.
• Handles complex, multi-standard programs well, making it ideal for organizations scaling up compliance rigor.
• Assumes internal leadership will drive implementation, so it is not ideal if you need heavy external support.

Secureframe vs Vanta vs Laika: What drives teams to switch?

Vanta to Secureframe

Some G2 reviews mention transitioning from Vanta to Secureframe in pursuit of a more user-centric experience and finely tuned compliance workflows. For instance, user reviews note that Vanta delivers great integration and automation for SOC 2, but Secureframe’s Ease of Use and Quality of Support scores are higher, pointing toward superior UX and responsive platform maturity among compliance tools.

Laika to Vanta

While direct review data is limited for this migration path in the Laika vs Vanta vs Secureframe comparison, the pattern is logical: teams starting with Laika for its simplicity often find themselves needing more built-in automation and framework coverage. G2 data highlights that Vanta delivers stronger integrations, automation, and compliance monitoring than many alternatives—traits that growing organizations usually prioritize when selecting the best compliance automation tool 2025.

Secureframe to Vanta 

G2 and Gartner comparisons suggest organizations shift to Vanta when their priorities tilt toward rapid ROI and expansive framework support in enterprise security. In comparative ratings, Vanta scores slightly higher in compliance monitoring, while Secureframe edges out in user access control and centralized vendor management. These nuances indicate that some teams choose Vanta when scaling their compliance footprint quickly outweighs granular risk management needs.

Why Sprinto beats them all?

If you’ve read this far through, one thing should be clear: Vanta, Secureframe, and Laika each bring something to the table. But none deliver across all the critical dimensions including automation depth, audit readiness, multi-framework scalability, and true support. Early-stage teams may start with Laika or Vanta. Mid-market orgs may lean on Secureframe. But as your compliance complexity grows and the stakes rise, you need more than checklists; you need outcomes.

That’s where Sprinto stands apart. Purpose-built for high-growth SaaS and mid-market companies, Sprinto doesn’t just fill feature gaps, it rearchitects the compliance experience around speed, intelligence, and scale. From real-time monitoring to tiered alerts to frictionless audits, it’s designed to keep your team focused on growth — not buried in compliance tasks.

What you get with Sprinto?

• 99% Automation Coverage: Sprinto automates employee onboarding, policy enforcement, access reviews, and evidence collection to eliminate manual work and keep compliance on track as you scale across frameworks.
• 200+ Deep Integrations: Sprinto connects to your infrastructure, code repos, HR systems, and more, providing real-time, full-stack visibility and centralized compliance control.
• Built-In Compliance Stack: With native MDM, policy management, risk registers, and training modules, Sprinto replaces the need for third-party tools and cuts down cost and complexity.
• Continuous Monitoring with Smart Alerts: Sprinto tracks all controls continuously and sends early, tiered alerts before issues escalate, so you can fix problems proactively.
• Auditor-Grade Dashboards: Evidence is automatically collected and presented in auditor-ready formats, speeding up reviews and reducing audit friction.
• Frameworks That Scale with You: Sprinto supports over 30 frameworks and auto-maps controls across them, letting you expand compliance coverage without rework.

If you’re ready to eliminate manual ops, shorten audit timelines, and scale compliance with zero friction — Sprinto is built for you.

Book your personalized demo today.

Disclaimer: The information on this page is based on independent research conducted by our team and on insights gathered from publicly available, user-first review platforms such as G2. We have summarized feedback to highlight commonly mentioned strengths and areas for improvement. While we strive for accuracy and balance, user experiences may vary, and we encourage readers to review the original sources for the most up-to-date feedback. This article was last updated in September 2025.

FAQ