A growing benefits and compensation platform in Europe was maintaining ISO 27001 manually and knew the approach would not hold. With a June audit on the horizon and a consultant-led incumbent that handled certification more than it automated it, the team needed a platform that could reduce ongoing manual effort, handle inbound security questionnaires, and scale into future frameworks without forcing a disruptive implementation. The decision was not urgent by design. The team could operate manually for a few more months and knew it. What changed was a clear calendar anchor: get the right platform in place by January, and the June audit becomes a managed deliverable instead of a scramble.
[ The Problem ]
Manual compliance works until it doesn't, and the next audit is always closer than it looks.
The team had a functioning ISO 27001 program, but it was held together by manual evidence collection, ad hoc questionnaire responses, and a certification partner that provided guidance more than infrastructure. Every audit cycle consumed disproportionate team time, and the volume of inbound security questionnaires from customers was growing faster than the team could absorb.
The deeper problem was forward-looking. Plans to pursue SOC 2 later in the year meant that any compliance investment made now would either compound or duplicate. Choosing the wrong platform meant rebuilding from scratch when the next framework came into scope. The team needed a system that could carry them through ISO 27001 and into what came next, without starting over.
[ What they needed ]
Before selecting a platform, the team was working through several competing priorities at once:
- Reduce manual evidence collection across a cloud-native AWS and GCP environment
- Automate responses to inbound security questionnaires from customers
- Replace a consultant-led certification model with a self-sufficient compliance platform
- Ensure auditor familiarity with whatever platform was selected
- Preserve existing tooling and workflows without a disruptive implementation
- Create a path to SOC 2 that reused ISO 27001 work rather than duplicating it
- Clarify data residency and storage requirements before committing to a vendor
[ Why Drata won ]
Selected over Vanta, Drata won by pairing cloud-native evidence automation with a credible audit support model that the incumbent could not match.
Platform fit across the existing stack: the team's environment included AWS, GCP, Okta, Jira, and GitHub. Drata's native integrations meant implementation required configuration, not infrastructure change, which was a hard requirement given the team's preference for low-disruption onboarding.
Audit credibility, not just automation: the incumbent had a consultant-led model that provided certification guidance alongside tooling. Drata had to demonstrate it could support audit readiness practically, not just automate checks. Auditor collaboration features and a structured readiness path addressed that concern directly.
Framework leverage across ISO 27001 and SOC 2: the team was already planning a second certification. Drata's cross-framework mapping meant the ISO 27001 investment would reduce, not duplicate, the effort required for SOC 2, which made the total cost of the platform easier to justify internally.
Trust Center deflected questionnaire volume at scale: with a growing customer base generating inbound security diligence requests, the team needed a way to answer once and share broadly. Trust Center made that operationally real, not aspirational.
[ How Drata solved it ]
Drata GRC connected directly to the team's existing stack, including AWS, GCP, Okta, Jira, and GitHub, and began collecting evidence continuously without requiring major process changes. That removed the manual collection burden that had defined every previous audit cycle.
Trust Center gave the team a way to handle inbound security questionnaires without pulling staff into repetitive manual responses. Customers could access security documentation directly, and the team could redirect that capacity toward audit readiness instead of inbox management.
AIQA addressed one of the team's specific concerns: that auditors might not be familiar with or willing to work within a compliance platform. By supporting auditor collaboration natively, Drata made the June audit a platform-supported process rather than a parallel manual effort.
The ISO 27001 framework mapping also created direct reuse value for the planned SOC 2 work. Controls, evidence, and policies mapped across both frameworks, meaning the investment in the first certification cycle would carry forward rather than be rebuilt from scratch.
[ Before and after Drata ]
Before Drata, every audit cycle required a manual evidence collection effort coordinated through a consultant-led model with no continuous monitoring and no shared security documentation layer. After, evidence collection runs continuously in the background, inbound questionnaire requests are handled through the Trust Center, and the June audit is a scheduled deliverable rather than a reactive sprint.
[ Business outcome ]
The team entered the June audit cycle with continuous evidence collection already running, inbound questionnaire volume handled through the Trust Center, and a compliance program that no longer depended on manual effort to stay current.
The shift from consultant-led certification to a self-sufficient compliance platform changed the operational model entirely. Instead of preparing for audits in bursts, the team maintains audit readiness as a background process. Future SOC 2 work is now an extension of existing infrastructure, not a new project, which means the cost and effort of the next certification cycle is materially lower than it would have been under the previous approach.