We performed a comparison between RSA Archer and Workiva Wdesk based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two GRC solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Archer seamlessly integrates data systems without requiring additional software."
"RSA is a very rich application. I like its adaptive suggestion, where based on your users and the class of data, it can actually recommend you the proper control to choose. For example, we have been using PCI DSS as an NIST. So based on application feedback, it will provide you with a suggestion on which control objective needs to be set. Based on that, you can make a decision—you don't need to take the suggestion, but you can customize that particular provided suggestion. RSA Archer's workflow is also good, in terms of process automation."
"The solution has helped our organization manage our internal and external activities."
"It has the best workload management features."
"From my perspective, because I've always done it as a consultant, I do like the way it is configured. They've gone into changing the application builder interface, so it is even easier. When you're working with users, it is really easy to show them how to do things quickly and how to configure, change, and design stuff quickly."
"I like how Archer requires very little programming ability. A person with minimum coding experience can configure the necessary fields in Archer. It's more of a drag-and-drop solution."
"Even non-technical people can be masters of the product."
"Enables development of any application, automation of any workflow including the GRC work processes."
"Workiva Wdesk has a flow diagram that is standardized, making it easy for people to file documents on ECDAs, which are in HTML format."
"Workiva Wdesk is pretty good in terms of getting the data from the system, automating the reporting schedules...It has a very good integration with ERP tools."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to easily upload and update financial results, creating a dynamic data sheet."
"It makes the compliance process more efficient and more effective."
"It helps you to maintain a backup of your data, including the connectivity with the tables, which provides a user-friendly way to handle and access your files."
"The collaboration within the platform is valuable."
"The design and advanced workflow need to be improved."
"The solution as a whole could be simplified."
"I would like to have the ability to build and maintain an inventory of personal data processing activities and assets utilizing a purpose-built taxonomy and data structure."
"The product is expensive."
"There is no inbuilt alert in Archer to let us know that a data feed has failed or did not run for different reasons. So, we don't even get to know that a feed has not run until somebody reports it to us. This has been a problem all the time. Data feeds have always been a big headache for us because there is no feature to let us know if a feed has not run or has failed. If Archer had a feature to send us an email notification when a feed has failed, it would've been very helpful. This is the reason why our users are slowly moving away to another platform. Some of the modules that I have been managing are being moved to ServiceNow. Next year, a lot of our modules will be moved from RSA Archer to ServiceNow, and the data feed issue has been one of the main reasons."
"Archer could be improved by having more customization. I'm not sure if the backend processes have API calls and those kinds of seamless integrations, but from the front, some of the solutions are very out-of-the-box. It's not customizable, so that could be a little problematic since you have to use their features. In terms of the backend structure, I'm not too sure because I'm not a developer—I was an end user and product owner of Archer—and I don't quite know the backend and developmental features. But since it's an out-of-the-box solution, sometimes customization was challenging and support was a little problematic because we had to reach out to them all the time."
"It would be nice if RSA Archer featured more customization. When customers are updating, they should be notified whether certain updates are optional. The install screen should not proceed to the next page unless we make some selections about which updates we want to install."
"RSA Archer might be a bit expensive for small companies because it's a vast tool."
"One area where Workiva Wdesk could improve is by ensuring that its cloud-based system is fully compatible with the most current versions of PowerPoint and Excel."
"The most critical issue is the need to shift between uppercase and lowercase."
"With this product, it's more about the integrated data model where you can have a one-to-many/many-to-one relationship between your policies and processes, risks, and controls. They need to showcase how you can put those pieces together."
"Regarding the solution, reporting has certain areas that can be considered for improvement."
"The speed must be improved."
"At this point, I don't see a compelling reason to invest in Workiva. It may be necessary for compliance and controlling the version of SCC, but not everyone needs its high-end capabilities."
RSA Archer is ranked 1st in GRC with 38 reviews while Workiva Wdesk is ranked 7th in GRC with 6 reviews. RSA Archer is rated 8.0, while Workiva Wdesk is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of RSA Archer writes "A rich application with good workflow, but search feature needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Workiva Wdesk writes "A user-friendly tool useful for data consolidation and automating the reporting schedules". RSA Archer is most compared with OneTrust GRC, IBM OpenPages, MetricStream, Microsoft Purview Communication Compliance and Snow Governance & Risk, whereas Workiva Wdesk is most compared with AuditBoard, Oracle Hyperion, OneTrust GRC, LucaNet and Oracle Enterprise Performance Management Cloud. See our RSA Archer vs. Workiva Wdesk report.
See our list of best GRC vendors.
We monitor all GRC reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.