We performed a comparison between AuditBoard and RSA Archer 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 valuable feature is the well-documented instruction."
"AuditBoard is very user-friendly compared to other audit management software I have used in the past."
"AuditBoard has several solutions for governance, internal audit, and other categories."
"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."
"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."
"Its ability to share the data in real-time has helped us well."
"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."
"There are lots of features."
"Archer seamlessly integrates data systems without requiring additional software."
"Makes auditing much more convenient."
"One of the useful features is the ability to connect to various systems in order to accommodate data."
"Easy to implement with a high level of automation."
"Good dashboards and reporting features; it's easy to gather reports quickly."
"The most valuable feature is the enterprise module, which provides the capability of having all of the information stored and linked with everything else."
"Archer has simplified our security audits. It's made it easier to raise and trigger questionnaires to customers."
"Solution is scalable."
"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."
"After sending out a request to my network for documents, it would be great to have a receipt that shows who received the request and who did not."
"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."
"It is not easy to analyze the results of a survey as a whole."
"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."
"AuditBoard could benefit from the addition of video capabilities, although it is not a necessity. Small companies that cannot afford licenses for Microsoft Teams or Zoom would benefit greatly from this feature, as it would enhance the communication process."
"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."
"They should improve the solution's test sheets feature for ease of use."
"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."
"In terms of what can be improved, our client always says their user experience, IU/UX in RSA Archer. They found it is not as user friendly as other tools."
"There are some issues with the interface for version 6.5 but these may already be repaired and simplified in the new versions that have been released."
"In a future release, there should be an option to upload the main data."
"I would like to see real-time data, from vulnerabilities, and threats."
"Slow turnaround time from support team."
"The technology's a little outdated."
"An area for improvement would be the user interface. They could also offer more on-demand applications free of cost."
AuditBoard is ranked 2nd in GRC with 11 reviews while RSA Archer is ranked 1st in GRC with 38 reviews. AuditBoard is rated 8.6, while RSA Archer is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AuditBoard writes "User-friendly, simple to implement, and has lots of features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA Archer writes "A rich application with good workflow, but search feature needs improvement". AuditBoard is most compared with Workiva Wdesk, OneTrust GRC, IBM OpenPages and LogicGate, whereas RSA Archer is most compared with OneTrust GRC, IBM OpenPages, MetricStream, Microsoft Purview Communication Compliance and Telos Xacta IA Manager. See our AuditBoard vs. RSA Archer report.
See our list of best GRC vendors and best IT Vendor Risk Management 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.