Software, consultants, and DIY can all work. The right choice depends on who is actually going to run the work.
Self-serve tools work well when your team already understands SOC 2, has a dedicated owner, and mainly needs integrations, alerts, and monitoring. If you have in-house GRC experience and just need tooling, a self-serve platform may be the right fit.
Software does not run the work for you. Your team still has to interpret failing controls, assign owners, collect useful evidence, and prepare for auditor questions. It shows you what is broken. Someone still has to fix it.
Traditional consultants are useful for one-time assessments, policy development, or specialized advisory work. If you need a point-in-time evaluation from an experienced practitioner, a consulting project can be the right call.
A report is not the same thing as weekly execution. Many teams still need help turning findings into action, reviewing evidence, and keeping things moving after delivery. If nobody has the bandwidth to run the program after the report lands, it stalls.
| Option | Best for | Weakness | GetComply difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance software | Teams with existing compliance ownership | Can become another dashboard if nobody is running the work | GetComply adds a person to help run the work. |
| Traditional consultant | One-time assessment or specialized advice | Execution falls back on your team after delivery | GetComply stays involved while gaps are fixed and evidence is cleaned up. |
| Internal DIY | High burden on CTO or founder without a dedicated owner | Hard to sustain alongside a full product schedule | GetComply gives the internal owner help, order, and reviewed outputs. |
| GetComply | SaaS teams under customer pressure without a GRC hire | Not a pure self-serve tool and not the cheapest path | Named advisor, weekly update, evidence review, CPA package. |