Vailor: the sovereign AI-native GRC alternative to Vanta

Yes, and for a first certification it is usually the efficient route. Both rest largely on the same practices: access management, change management, incident handling, supplier assurance, awareness training and business continuity. What differs is the deliverable. ISO/IEC 27001 expects a documented management system, with a defined scope, a risk assessment, a Statement of Applicability, an internal audit and a management review. SOC 2 expects an attestation report issued by an independent CPA firm against the trust services criteria set for the engagement. One evidence base can feed both, provided it is organised control by control from day one.

Scope first: which services, teams and infrastructure fall inside it. A narrow scope you can defend beats a broad one you only half hold. Then come the asset inventory and the risk assessment, which justifies the controls you keep and explains the ones you exclude in the Statement of Applicability. The gap between those controls and your actual practice becomes the remediation plan, and evidence collection starts there. For a SOC 2 Type 2 report, that collection has to span the whole observation period, and that is what really sets your timeline.

The repetitive work, not the judgement. A platform centralises evidence as it is produced, attaches it to the control it supports, flags what has gone stale and helps assemble the documentation that will be asked for. The decisions stay yours: scope, risk acceptance criteria, exclusions, remediation trade-offs. And the examination itself stays external. The ISO 27001 certificate comes from an accredited certification body, the SOC 2 report from an independent CPA firm. No tool issues those opinions, it puts you in a position to earn them.

Not if it is attached to a control rather than filed inside a single audit folder. A quarterly access review, an incident log, a restore test or a supplier assessment all answer requirements on both sides. The work worth doing is mapping your internal controls to each framework once, then collecting the evidence a single time. That is the principle of the Vailor Control Framework: when a piece of evidence is refreshed, every framework that relies on it moves forward with it. ISO 27001 and SOC 2 are not in the catalogue today: ISO 27001 is planned, and SOC 2 can be integrated on request, linked to the same controls.

Less than you might think on the mapping itself. In Vailor, that mapping does not depend on AI: the Vailor Control Framework links each control to every framework that asks for it, and evidence collected once serves everywhere. The AI works on the risk side: ISO 27001 requires a risk assessment, and Vailor prefills it from your project documents, based on excerpts you can check. Your experts validate and every decision is traced, because in front of the auditor you are the one explaining why a control was kept.

Start by extracting what carries value: the risk register, the control list and its status, current policies, and the evidence already collected together with its dates. Those carry over and reattach to the frameworks you are targeting with their history, which is exactly what an auditor samples. The changeover then runs control by control, with the previous tool left running for one review cycle so that no due date is dropped. If a first certification is already under way, schedule the switch after a milestone, never in the middle of an observation period.