Category comparison
Vanta, Drata, and runtime evidence.
Two artifacts, produced at different moments, answering different questions. They are not substitutes, and most teams that adopt one end up wanting the other.
Published 13 August 2026 · Last updated 13 August 2026
The short answer
Vanta and Drata are compliance automation platforms. They collect and maintain the evidence that a security program exists and is being operated: policies, control ownership, access reviews, vendor records, and continuous checks against a framework such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, or ISO 42001. Both do that work well, at a level of automation that used to take a team of people and a quarter of their year.
Glacis provides operational-evidence infrastructure at a configured action boundary. For covered actions routed through a supported path, it can produce a signed record of the control identities and outcomes that path reported.
The difference is the moment of capture. A program platform documents the control program. A runtime receipt answers a narrower question: do the signature and commitments validate for the covered fields reported about this action, under the identified key? That check does not establish factual truth, control effectiveness, or complete capture. Neither instrument substitutes for the other.
Side by side
Read this as two rows of a stack rather than two columns of a bake-off. Nothing in the right-hand column replaces anything in the left.
| Dimension | Vanta, Drata (compliance automation) | Runtime evidence (Glacis) |
|---|---|---|
| Question it answers | Does the control exist, and is it being operated? | What did the configured control path report for this covered action? |
| Unit of record | The control, the policy, the periodic review | The governed action: one inference, tool call, retrieval, or agent decision |
| Cadence | Continuous checks against configuration and process | A signed record emitted for a covered event, with reported time fields |
| Framework span | Broad: SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, HIPAA, GDPR and more | Narrow: the record-keeping half, landing most directly on EU AI Act Article 12 |
| Who can verify | An auditor working with the operator, under an engagement | A reviewer with the record and applicable trust material; no Glacis account is required for supported checks |
| Trust model | The reviewer trusts the platform collection and the operator attestations | The reviewer checks Ed25519 signatures and SHA-256 hash commitments |
| Where it runs | Hosted, integrated with cloud, identity, HR and ticketing systems | Deployment-specific: inside operator infrastructure or at another documented enforcement boundary |
| What leaves the environment | Configuration and metadata pulled from connected systems | Depends on deployment, receipt profile, telemetry, storage, support access, and bypass configuration; a data-minimizing receipt can disclose selected hashes, reported outcomes, and signatures |
| Strongest use | Reaching a certification and holding it without a fire drill each year | Answering the AI rows in a customer security review with something checkable |
Capabilities in this category move quickly. Treat the left-hand column as a description of the category rather than a current feature list, and validate scope directly with each vendor.
What Vanta and Drata do well
It is worth being precise about this, because the runtime evidence argument is often made by people who have never had to hold a certification and do not appreciate how much work these platforms remove.
- Continuous control monitoring. Rather than a scramble in the weeks before an audit, the program is checked against its framework on an ongoing basis, and drift surfaces as a task rather than a finding.
- Integration breadth. Both pull evidence directly from cloud accounts, identity providers, endpoint tooling, code hosting, and ticketing, which is where the underlying facts actually live.
- Framework mapping. One body of collected evidence can be mapped against several frameworks, reducing duplicated collection work where the scopes and requirements overlap.
- Programme operations. Policy libraries, control ownership, onboarding and offboarding checks, vendor reviews, and the calendar of periodic tasks that a real program needs and nobody enjoys running by hand.
- Trust centers. A place to publish posture to prospects, which shortens the front half of a security review considerably.
- AI framework coverage. Both have added support for AI management systems, and it does the same job for ISO 42001 that their earlier work did for information security: it tracks whether the required policies, owners, risk assessments, and reviews are in place.
If a team is trying to reach SOC 2 or ISO 27001, a compliance automation platform is the right purchase and a runtime evidence layer is not a substitute for it. Buying receipts instead would leave the certification unearned.
What a runtime receipt adds
A program platform records that a control exists and that somebody owns it. That is a claim about the organization. A runtime receipt is a claim about one event.
Selected records for covered actions
A supported record can include a receipt identifier, OVERT format version, named workflow, reported time, control identities and outcomes reported by the configured path, selected input or output commitments, signatures, and disclosed chain information. Exact fields depend on the record profile and configuration.
Checkable without relying on our dashboard
Supported signatures and hash commitments can be checked in the reviewer’s browser without a Glacis account. A data-minimizing configuration can omit prompt and output text, but disclosure depends on the fields and metadata actually included. The operator may still need to supply identity, enrollment, coverage, and surrounding deployment evidence.
That second property is the one that does not have an equivalent on the program side, and it is structural rather than a matter of effort. An audit report is a professional opinion rendered by a firm the reader is asked to trust. It is a good instrument, and it is not the same instrument as a signature a reader checks themselves.
The narrowness matters too. A valid receipt establishes integrity and key attribution for the covered fields it reports. It does not establish that the reported event was true, that a control ran or was effective, that every action was captured, that a system is safe, or that any requirement was satisfied. An evidence pack states the scope it covered rather than implying it covered everything. Read the OVERT standard if you want the field-by-field definition, or Verify a record in the browser to see what a reviewer actually does.
Where the two meet
The overlap sits in one specific moment rather than in the tooling: the AI rows of a customer security review.
Enterprise and health-system questionnaires have added rows on model egress, prompt and output handling, guardrail behavior, agent tool permissions, and logging of automated decisions. A reviewer working through those rows has an audit report in one hand and a set of questions the audit report was never designed to answer. The honest response to most of them today is an architecture diagram and a description of intent.
A receipt turns one of those rows into an artifact, though not all of them, because most rows are still about the program, and the program platform answers those better than anything else. For rows asking what a configured control path reported about a covered action, a signed record can replace a paragraph of prose while keeping its claim boundary explicit.
For a scoped review, teams can attach selected signed records with explanatory context and informational mapping references rather than wiring the systems together. Glacis does not currently offer an automated proof-bundle or OSCAL export route. The reviewer decides whether the supplied artifacts are relevant and sufficient.
When you do not need runtime evidence
Sales pages rarely include this section, which is why it is worth writing down.
- If nothing in the estate acts autonomously. An internal drafting assistant with no tool access, no external calls, and no bearing on a regulated decision does not need a per-action record, and adding one is cost without a reader.
- If no counterparty is asking. Runtime evidence earns its place when somebody outside the company, whether a customer, a regulator, an auditor, or an underwriter, has started asking a question the existing artifacts cannot answer. If that has not happened, the program platform is doing the job.
- If the certification is the goal. Reaching SOC 2 for the first time is a program problem, and receipts do not shorten it.
- If the AI is not yet in production. Pre-deployment testing and evaluation answer a different question, and answer it better. Runtime evidence begins at the point a system starts acting on real inputs.
The clearest signal that the calculus has changed is a security questionnaire that comes back with AI rows nobody can answer, or a buyer who asks how they would know a guardrail fired. Until then, the program is the priority.
Questions we get asked
Is Glacis an alternative to Vanta or Drata?
No. They solve a different problem and can be used together. Vanta and Drata automate work involved in running a security program and maintaining certification evidence. Glacis can produce a signed record of what a configured control path reported for a covered AI action. Replacing one with the other would leave a real gap in either direction.
We already hold SOC 2 and ISO 27001. Why would we need runtime evidence?
Those certifications describe a program, and reviewers still accept them for most of a security questionnaire. What changed is that enterprise and health-system questionnaires now carry AI-specific rows on egress, logging, and control execution, and an audit report does not answer a row that asks whether a guardrail fired on a specific inference. If nobody is asking you that question yet, you do not need runtime evidence yet.
Do compliance automation platforms cover ISO 42001 and the EU AI Act?
Increasingly, yes, and that coverage is genuine. Both vendors have added AI-specific framework support, and it does the same job for an AI management system that their earlier framework support did for information security: it tracks whether the required policies, owners, risk assessments, and reviews are in place. That is most of what ISO 42001 asks for. EU AI Act Article 12 is the part that sits outside it, because it asks for logs generated automatically by the system while it operates, not for a record that a logging policy exists.
Can a compliance automation platform ingest runtime receipts?
For a scoped review, teams can attach selected signed records with explanatory context and informational mapping references rather than wire the systems together. Glacis does not currently offer an automated proof-bundle or OSCAL export route. Supported receipt checks remain available regardless of which system stores the record.
Who can verify a runtime receipt, and what do they need from us?
A reviewer holding the record and applicable public-key material can run the supported browser checks without a Glacis account. The checks cover supported signatures, commitments, structure, and inclusion material where present; they do not establish organizational independence, source truth, complete capture, control effectiveness, or compliance.
Does a runtime receipt make us compliant with anything?
No. Frameworks ask you to define policy, assign ownership, tier risk, and keep records. A receipt can support a bounded part of that record-keeping for covered runtime events. It is not a compliance certificate or a safety guarantee, and an evidence pack states its scope rather than implying complete coverage.
Related reading
Keep the program. Add independently checkable operational evidence.
Start free, or talk to us about a consequential AI workflow.