Get in touch
info@canadiancyber.ca
Rafia Rizwan
February 18, 2026
Compliance automation platforms like Vanta, Drata, and Secureframe promise to automate up to 90% of your SOC 2 work but what does that really mean? In this guide, we break down exactly what a SOC 2 compliance automation platform can handle (evidence collection, continuous monitoring, control mapping) and where human expertise is still critical (risk assessment, control design, incident response, and audit defense). If you’re deciding between “tools only” or a hybrid approach with a vCISO, this article gives you a practical framework to choose the right balance for your tech stack, risk profile, and growth stage.
Canadian Cyber • SOC 2 • Compliance Automation
Vanta, Drata, Secureframe they promise to automate 90% of your SOC 2 work. But where does automation stop and human expertise begin?
Here is how to decide the right balance for your business.
“Automate 90% of your SOC 2 work.” “Get audit-ready in weeks.” “Zero manual evidence collection.”
Compliance automation platforms can deliver real value. But here is the part vendor pages rarely explain:
automation handles the what. It cannot handle the why.
Automation can collect evidence, monitor configurations, and generate auditor-friendly views. But it cannot interpret risk, exercise judgment during gray areas, or translate security into business decisions.
So the real question is not “Which platform should we buy?” It is:
What should we automate, and what still needs humans?
Modern platforms are genuinely powerful especially if you have a clean cloud stack and standard tooling.
| What Automation Does | How It Works | Real-World Benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence collection | APIs connect to AWS/Azure/GWS/GitHub/Okta and pull configurations | No more screenshots or “can you export that report?” |
| Continuous monitoring | Automated tests check control states daily/hourly | Find failures fast before audit time |
| Control mapping | Maps controls to SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / HIPAA (etc.) | Reuse one control across frameworks |
| Policy management | Templates + approvals + attestations | Cleaner policy lifecycle and proof of acknowledgment |
| Access reviews | Automated review workflows + reminders | Less spreadsheet chaos, better audit trails |
| Auditor portals | Auditors self-serve evidence and control status | Fewer interruptions and faster audit cycles |
In many SOC 2 programs, platforms can realistically automate 50–70% of the repetitive work depending on scope and stack.
Automation struggles when the work becomes contextual: business risk, judgment calls, auditor conversations, incident leadership, and culture.
| Task | What Automation Does | What It Misses |
|---|---|---|
| Risk assessment | Templates + pre-mapped risks | Risk appetite, business impact, nuanced scenarios |
| Control design | Suggested controls | Controls that fit your operations and engineering workflows |
| Incident response | Alerts + tickets | Command decisions, stakeholder comms, evidence preservation |
| Auditor defense | Evidence presentation | Explaining context, compensating controls, rationale |
| Culture | Training completion tracking | Behavior change, influence, and security “muscle memory” |
The best programs automate the repetitive, data-heavy work and keep humans focused on judgment and decision-making.
| Highly Automatable (70–90%) | Requires Human Judgment (30–50%) |
|---|---|
| Evidence collection via API integrations | Risk assessment and risk treatment decisions |
| Continuous monitoring + drift detection | Control design that fits your operational reality |
| Access review workflows + reminders | Incident leadership + stakeholder communications |
| Policy acknowledgements + evidence organization | Auditor conversations, rationale, and compensating controls |
Most platforms cover the SOC 2 basics. The differences are usually integration depth, monitoring quality, workflows, and long-term scalability.
| Platform | Strengths | Best For | Common Limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vanta | Broad integrations, many automated tests | Startups → mid-market, multi-framework | Costs can rise with add-ons/scope |
| Drata | Strong workflows, risk features | Teams wanting scalable programs | Integration depth varies by tool |
| Secureframe | Simple UX, strong policy workflows | Growth-stage companies | Automation depth varies by integration |
| Sprinto | Guided approach, startup-friendly | First-time SOC 2, lean teams | May need stronger scale features later |
| Phase | Tools Handle | Humans Handle |
|---|---|---|
| Setup | Integrations, baseline evidence | Scoping, risk assessment, control design |
| Operations | Monitoring, alerts, reminders | Investigation, remediation decisions |
| Audit prep | Evidence organization, portal access | Gap analysis, auditor readiness, narratives |
| Incidents | Monitoring + signals | Leadership, communications, recovery |
In 15 minutes, we’ll map your current stack, scope, and team capacity and tell you what to automate, what needs humans, and the fastest path to audit readiness.
| Model | What You Pay For | Typical Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Tools only | Platform subscription | Evidence collected; decisions still unclear |
| Team only (no tools) | Manual effort + consultants | Higher burnout; slower cycle time |
| Hybrid (recommended) | Platform + vCISO layer | Automation + judgment + audit defense |
Compliance automation platforms are extraordinary tools. They eliminate grunt work, provide continuous visibility, and reduce audit pain.
But they do not replace: risk judgment, control design, incident leadership, cultural influence, auditor relationships, and strategic direction.
Tools handle the what. Humans handle the why. You need both.
We’ll tell you how much automation is realistic for your stack, where human judgment is essential, and the fastest path to audit readiness.
| Scenario | Tools Investment | Human Investment |
|---|---|---|
| Startup, first SOC 2, modern stack | High | Low (vCISO for guidance) |
| Scale-up, adding frameworks | High | Medium |
| Mature, complex environment | Medium | High |
| Post-incident or high-risk | Medium | High (incident leadership) |
| Legacy systems, OT, custom apps | Low | High (manual expertise) |
