We performed a comparison between AuditBoard and IBM OpenPages 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."The most significant feature of AuditBoard is its community tools. It provides an internal communication platform that enables users to communicate within the system rather than relying on external tools such as Outlook or Microsoft products. By communicating within the system, all interactions are centralized and accessible, promoting a streamlined workflow."
"Considering the solution's return on investment, it has been extremely helpful since we were doing a lot of documentation. Previously, in our company, we were using an Excel sheet which made things quite messy."
"The most valuable feature is that everybody can use the same tool. You can give a person permission to use AuditBoard and define their access to the Audit Table. For example, we can allow external auditors or clients to review our completed tests. The clients are attached to specific tests that happen regularly, like inventory counts and asset counts. Debt compliance is only done once annually."
"AuditBoard is very user-friendly compared to other audit management software I have used in the past."
"I find the most significant elements of this solution are the out-of-the-box reporting, the ease of workflow, workflow management, and the ease of managing our audit process."
"The most valuable feature of AuditBoard is its ability to facilitate the editing of work papers in a seamless and efficient manner. This is achieved through a built-in tool that allows for real-time editing without the need for downloading the working paper. This feature has proven to be incredibly time-saving for me as it eliminates the step of having to download the file and make changes, instead providing an easy-to-access "edit work paper" option. Overall, this feature has greatly improved my experience with AuditBoard and has been a significant contributor to its success in my opinion."
"Its ability to share the data in real-time has helped us well."
"There are lots of features."
"The content, reporting, and workflow features stand out as the most valuable aspects."
"The ability to keep a record of internal incidents in the company, and also the monitoring of Key Indicators."
"The product’s interface is very intuitive."
"Some of that flexibility could be enhanced. When comparing Archer and TeamMate+, there is a little more open-ended in terms of certain of our audit processes and procedures. And there is significantly greater freedom in creating ad hoc audit processes and procedures, whereas AuditBoard is a little more limiting in this regard."
"A handful of things in the solution need to be improved. One of them is better communication of updates to the system or tool itself."
"AuditBoard has the potential for improvement in a few key areas. Firstly, I have experienced instances where the platform has experienced technical issues and ceased to function effectively. Additionally, the editing tools provided within the platform can be slow and laggy, particularly when trying to access and edit important documents. This can be a hindrance to my workflow and efficiency. To address these issues, they should begin by improving the speed and reliability of the platform, as well as enhancing the search engine to make it easier to find specific controls and documents within the platform."
"It is not easy to analyze the results of a survey as a whole."
"Everything is there, and I have no disadvantage to note as of now."
"The initial setup is somewhat difficult because it has multiple pieces that need to be stitched together. You have to integrate it with the business unit you want to test if you want to go down from the corporate level to the operational level."
"The layout for the end user could be improved."
"They should improve the solution's test sheets feature for ease of use."
"IBM OpenPages needs improvement in its UI. Currently, it is difficult to see the relationships (associations/parents) between all items unless you click on the item itself."
"I believe there's room for improvement in establishing connections with external information."
"The solution must allow customization in reporting."
AuditBoard is ranked 2nd in GRC with 11 reviews while IBM OpenPages is ranked 8th in GRC with 5 reviews. AuditBoard is rated 8.6, while IBM OpenPages is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of AuditBoard writes "User-friendly, simple to implement, and has lots of features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM OpenPages writes "Enables us to manage global workflow and users' relationships with the links". AuditBoard is most compared with Workiva Wdesk, OneTrust GRC, RSA Archer and LogicGate, whereas IBM OpenPages is most compared with RSA Archer, MetricStream, OneTrust GRC, SAP BusinessObjects GRC and SAS Enterprise GRC. See our AuditBoard vs. IBM OpenPages 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.
